Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Air Quality

Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the reports on air quality when public inquiries are held on major roadway developments; and if he will make a statement. [24716]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): Environmental statements for trunk road schemes, including air quality assessments, are prepared in accordance with current best practice, as set out in the design manual for roads and bridges. The manual is updated in the light of new developments in assessment methodology.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Secretary of State aware that, at a public inquiry held last year on the realignment of the A1 and the junction of the M62 at Ferrybridge, questions were asked about the environmental assessment relating to vehicle pollution, and the inquiry was told that no such assessment had been made? The interchange is within 200 m of a junior and infants' school where the majority of

children suffer from asthma; more than 200 were admitted to hospital in Wakefield last year. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Department should be more involved in obtaining assessments of air pollution when motorways are so near to schools, and will he ensure that such assessments are available at public inquiries for public scrutiny?

Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is difficult for me to comment on the scheme, as a public inquiry has been held. The inspector has submitted a report, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I are now considering. I shall study it carefully before reaching a decision. I know that the hon. Gentleman gave evidence at the inquiry.
Let me reaffirm that, when we are examining trunk road schemes, it is important for air quality assessments to be prepared in accordance with best practice. In arriving at decisions, we take account of the factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that natural gas-powered vehicles are one alternative that could improve the control of pollution from vehicles, especially public service vehicles? Will he congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on reducing the tax on that source of fuel, and will he encourage him to do the same this year?

Sir George Young: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will be grateful for the plaudits heaped on him by my hon. Friend, and I know that he will take my hon. Friend's recommendations into account when he crafts his next Budget.
The Government are giving keen consideration to the development of new fuels and new vehicle technologies in order to reduce vehicle emissions and drive up standards of air quality. My Department continues to conduct trials of alternative fuels with local authorities and with industry.

Mr. Chidgey: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is aware that recent medical research carried out by


hospitals in England shows a direct relationship between the volume of traffic on trunk roads, and their closeness to urban areas, and the incidence of admission to hospital of patients with respiratory illnesses? What plans has he to include a calculation of health disbenefits in the overall calculation of benefits and costs for major highway schemes?

Sir George Young: I think that improving air quality should be an objective in its own right, regardless of the specific economic factors to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. It is worth restating that air quality is improving, and that transport emissions are forecast to halve over the next decade as a result of improvements in vehicle emission standards and the enforcement measures that are already in place. My Department is playing an active role in improving the quality of the atmosphere and health standards, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in that objective.

Westward Rail Link (Heathrow)

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to secure provision of a westward rail link from Heathrow to the London—Swindon line. [24717]

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): A possible westward rail link from Heathrow airport to the Great Western main line is one of number of schemes being examined in the Government's London airports surface access study.

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of enthusiastic support for the concept of a westward link from Heathrow to the Great Western railway line on environmental grounds? It would make access to the airport from the west—from Wales, and from my constituency in Swindon—a great deal easier, and would encourage people not to travel on the M4, which, as my hon. Friend well knows, is already congested at peak times. Will he use his best endeavours to ensure that, if the access study team comes up with a proposal for such a link, the private sector is given every encouragement to bid for the project at the earliest possible stage?

Mr. Watts: It is encouraging to hear such good, common sense from Swindon. Those who visit Swindon to make speeches do not always utter such sensible ideas. Proposals for improving rail access from Heathrow to the London-Swindon line are among the studies for schemes by BAA and Railtrack. Railtrack-BAA train operating companies and the London borough of Hillingdon are also looking at proposals for a new station north of Heathrow—the so-called Heathrow gateway north station. Either of those projects could be taken forward by the private sector in the new private sector railway.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is it not foolish that, in advance of receiving the surface access study relating to Heathrow, the Government are embarking on widening the M25? They should pause and reflect, and abandon that crackpot scheme until the whole question of surface access to Heathrow can be looked at and the issue of Terminal 5

determined. It is wrong to go ahead with the widening without a public inquiry into air quality and other matters at the same time as contemplating a rail link—

Madam Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman a chance, but he has gone wide of the mark.

Mr. Watts: Over a year ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) announced our proposed approach to the M25 and access to Heathrow and said that we would be presenting a balanced transport package that would involve modest widening, and an enhancement, of the M25' s capacity, and studies into improving surface access by rail. Both elements of the policy are being taken forward expeditiously.

Newbury Bypass

Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce which contractor has won the main contract to build the Newbury bypass. [24718]

Mr. Watts: Tenders are still being assessed for the works. The contract will be awarded as soon as possible.

Mr. Rendel: Following the appalling amount of misinformation that has been put about by some of the protesters about the Newbury bypass, and the suggestions that there may be alternative methods of improving Newbury's environment, will the Minister make sure that the contractor who is finally given the contract is aware of the importance of publicity and makes sure that everybody in the country recognises that the bypass is the best—indeed, the only—way to improve Newbury's environment?

Mr. Watts: I am not sure that I see that as part of the role of the selected contractor, but it is certainly important that the voice of the majority of people in and around Newbury is heard and that the views of unrepresentative minorities are not given undue weight. The environment is not just about furry animals and plants: it is about the conditions in which people in urban areas live. There is no doubt that the bypass would bring about a substantial improvement in the environment for the people of the town of Newbury.

Buses (London)

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of bus speeds and usage in London; and if he will make a statement. [24719]

Sir George Young: London Transport estimates that, in 1995–96, the average speed of buses in central London was about 8 mph in peak periods and 9 mph in the daytime off-peak. Almost 1.2 billion passenger journeys were made on London Transport bus services last year.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister not ashamed to announce that bus speeds in London are hardly any more than they have been over the past 50 years? Indeed, they are getting slower. Is it not time to put some money into bus priority measures throughout London, including high-technology schemes that allow traffic lights to be changed in favour of


approaching buses? Above all, is it not nonsense for London's 32 boroughs to compete with each other in planning London's transport needs when, rather than the existing chaos, the city needs what it once had—an overall transport authority, accountable to the people of London, that puts money, resources and imagination into public transport?

Sir George Young: We have an elected transport authority for London and he is sitting beside me. As for resources, I agree and, this year, we are putting more financial support into the London bus priority network. Support and supplementary credit approvals total £9 million—a higher level than last year. I would like buses to run faster. London Transport predicts that, on completion of the London bus priority network, bus speeds should increase by 15 per cent.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the introduction of the red route system, bus speeds and timings have improved, and that accidents have been reduced? If all that is the case, will he push ahead with the undoubted success of the red route scheme?

Sir George Young: Like my hon. Friend, I am a London Member of Parliament. In my post this morning, I received, from the Association of London Government, a publication on red routes, and I was pleased to read in paragraph 3.4 that survey results showed that illegal parking was drastically reduced, that traffic delays were reduced, with journey times down by an average of 10 per cent., that variability of journeys fell by one third and that casualties—to pick up my hon. Friend's point—fell by 17 per cent. The results also showed that average traffic speed had increased, so the scheme is already yielding benefits, and we are determined to ensure that those benefits are further extended throughout London.

Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State pass on best wishes to his colleague the Minister for Transport in London for the work of the bus working group, which he has set up to consider this problem and others in relation to the bus industry's deregulation? Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a growing consensus, with the Select Committee on Transport and the Chartered Institute of Transport, that the Government should consider bus reregulation to take away the worst effects of bus deregulation? Will he therefore press on his hon. Friend the case for finding parliamentary time to introduce some sensible proposals that will be supported by Labour Members? If he does not do that, will he be assured that we shall find time to do so when we take over on the Government Benches?

Sir George Young: Those are idle promises. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, there is no move towards a reregulated system. The Select Committee did not suggest that the bus system be reregulated, but, within the context of a deregulated system, my hon. Friend the Minister is seeing what extra measures can be taken further to drive up the standards that bus passengers enjoy.
There is always pressure on the House for legislative time, but, if there are sensible proposals for building on the progress that we have already made in improving life for people who use buses, we shall certainly consider introducing legislation.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since deregulation, London buses get into all the corners and parts of London, which they never hitherto did, and give a much better service? What does he think an elected or nominated mayor of London could achieve that has not been achieved?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. There is no role for an elected authority in London between the London boroughs and the Department of Transport where, as I have already mentioned, we have a Minister for Transport in London who is making good progress in improving the quality of transport in London. My hon. Friend will know that the countdown system is being piloted along the Uxbridge road in Ealing and that we are in the process of evaluating that to find out whether there is a case for extending it throughout London.

Crossrail

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of crossrail. [24720]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): As my right hon. Friend has told the House, crossrail has its place in the sequence of major London projects. The Government are committed to it going ahead as a joint venture with a substantial private sector contribution.

Mr. Gapes: Many people and many organisations in London, including London Pride Partnership, the Corporation of London and the Association of London Government, were bitterly disappointed by the Government's announcement a few weeks ago. As Londoners, we feel that crossrail has been delayed unnecessarily and we hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Government remain firmly committed to crossrail's implementation at an early date, as it is necessary for our city's economic vitality and for journeys across the city, because it links our main railway stations. May we have that assurance?

Mr. Norris: If Londoners are disappointed, it is probably largely because they have relied on the disinformation about the status of crossrail which has been spread by the Opposition. The reality is that, in London, we are proceeding with the Jubilee line extension which is due to open on 28 March 1998—book your tickets now—and we have already announced that the £650 million Thameslink 2000 scheme will follow thereafter, to be followed by the channel tunnel rail link, which is a scheme of around £2.7 billion. We have made it clear that, from a financial and logistics standpoint, it is right that crossrail should follow those projects. That is prudent and sensible government, something that Londoners understand when they are exposed to it but something that I do not expect Opposition Members to begin to understand.

Mr. Brooke: While I accept the logic of the Government's position, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have prolonged the already considerable blight along the line of rail? Have the Government ventured any consideration of the French method of compensation in such matters which seems, for a disproportionately low investment, greatly to accelerate the conduct of affairs?

Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend is right in the sense that one regrets any blight on properties necessarily involved in a scheme of such magnitude continuing for one day longer than necessary, especially when the status of the proposals is as it is. I hope that he will accept that I must resist his blandishment to discuss the relative merits of French compensation systems. Certainly, we are keen to ensure that people whose properties are affected by crossrail understand that the Government remain committed to the scheme and will see it happen, but we shall see it happen according to an orderly and sensible timetable that takes account of affordability and of the impact on the streets of London itself.

Ms Short: Is the Minister aware that crossrail provides the equivalent of 28 lanes of road across London, that it is an enormously valuable project, and that recent reports show that perhaps half its funding could be provided by the private sector? Will he now admit what he has not told the House—that the scheme has been delayed deliberately because, if it went ahead and licences were sought, it might endanger the flotation of Railtrack? Does he agree that the enormous damage being done to London, yet again, is part of the destructive consequences of rail privatisation?

Mr. Norris: I suspect that the difference between us is that I do not work with that kind of conspiracy theory constantly in my mind. To any objective observer, it is the most absurd notion one can imagine in relation to the flotation of Railtrack. Crossrail is, of course, a large and important scheme, and we remain committed to it. When planning such investments in public transport infrastructure, the key criterion has to be affordability. As I said, I do not expect the Opposition to understand that, but it is how tough and real decisions are made. It is, and has always been, the case that Railtrack will look at crossrail as a private sector entity to take account of the risks and rewards attendant on it, and will respond accordingly. That is entirely right. In addition, it ensures that the financing of crossrail is properly transparent and offers the best possible deal to taxpayers.

Ms Short: Not true.

Mr. Norris: I shall ignore what the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, as that might not be parliamentary, but what I said is patently the case.

Madam Speaker: It could not have been unparliamentary, or I would have stopped the hon. Lady.

Fatal Accidents (Roads)

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest figures for fatal accidents on roads in England and Wales. [24721]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The provisional figures for 1995 are among the lowest since records began. They show that 3, 319 fatal accidents caused 3, 665 deaths in Great Britain as a whole.

Mr. Arnold: Nevertheless, my hon. Friend will know that a number of those fatal accidents recently occurred on the stretch of the A2 opposite Gravesend. I thank him for commissioning, in response to my representations, a study of safety on that stretch of road to be carried out by Kent county council, our local highway authority. When can we expect a report?

Mr. Norris: As my hon. Friend says, he advised me of his particular interest in the A2 scheme in Kent. The Highways Agency is discussing the scope of that study with Kent county council, which is our agent. Although the scheme is dependent on funding, we still expect it to go ahead this financial year.

Mr. Miller: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Law Commission on its recent report on involuntary manslaughter in so far as it affects death on the road? When can we expect some primary legislation to bring about the important changes that are needed to deal with that difficult area of law?

Mr. Norris: No, I will not join him in that because I do not think that it would be reasonable to do so before we have a chance to study the report. We acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's genuine interest in the matter. We also accept that penalties across the whole range of traffic offences have their place in discouraging inappropriate behaviour. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have to bear in mind that if unduly severe penalties are related to specific traffic infringements, one of the dangers is that the courts will not press those charges for fear that there might be acquittal. We welcome the report, we shall certainly look at it and we shall come forward with our findings on it in due course.

Freight

Mr. Hendry: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance his Department has given to encourage freight off the roads and on to the railways. [24722]

Sir Geroge Young: By giving rail freight operators the commercial freedom and incentive to win traffic from road, we are ensuring a bright future for that important industry. We have made good progress with the sale of British Rail's freight businesses. We continue to provide targeted support for the industry through track access grants and freight facilities grant.

Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall his recent visit to my constituency, when he opened the new Government-funded railhead at Buxton Lime Industries, which is the largest quarry in Europe? Does he agree that such a combination of privatisation with Government grants and incentives will make it possible for freight to be transferred off the roads and on to railways? Will he assure my constituents that, wherever possible, it will be


the Government's objective to achieve precisely that, and to stop huge lorries rumbling through small villages that were never intended for such traffic?

Sir George Young: I recall with affection my recent visit to my hon. Friend's constituency. He was good enough to arrange for me to be transported by a steam train and to be greeted by a brass band on my descent. I must say that that is not a reception that I receive in every constituency that I visit. The grant to which my hon. Friend referred is one of the largest ever awarded to a company. It ensures that the town of Buxton is spared 125 lorry movements a day for at least 10 years. Yes, it is indeed the Government's policy to continue to make grants available in suitable circumstances to win traffic off the road and to put it back on the railways.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Secretary of State would like to come to Crewe and Nantwich, I could arrange for at least two brass bands to give him a very suitable fanfare, making the right kind of noises. Perhaps he could then explain to my constituents why the Conservative party chairman, having told us all at great length how it was necessary to split the freight system to get competition into the rail system, apparently went to America and handed over vast numbers of assets to a particular American firm, which has insisted that it should have total control? Is that correct, and is it why the Secretary of State received a fanfare when he went to the constituency of the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry)?

Sir George Young: I am interested in the auction that is developing to see who can provide the most brass bands with which to greet the Transport Secretary. On the suggestion concerning my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), the competition was open, it was comprehensive and I have absolute confidence in its propriety. On the gist of the hon. Lady's comments, Trainload Freight was indeed split into three. We then gave the market an opportunity to decide whether it wanted to bid for it in three parts or in its entirety. It was clear from that competition that the market would prefer to buy it in one go. If one takes the view that real competition comes from road rather than rail, there is much to be said for having one well-resourced, effective provider in the rail industry in order to compete effectively with the road industry.

Mr. Congdon: Although new investment in the railways is desirable to build additional freight lines, especially as that removes freight from the road on to the railway, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that any proposals do not do so at the expense of the destruction or blight of many houses, as is likely under the proposal by Central Railways?

Sir George Young: I know how strongly my hon. Friend and other hon. Members feel about the potential impact of the Central Railways Group proposals. He will have seen that I recently refused the application for waivers that was lodged with my Department. The ball is now in the court of the Central Railways Group, which will have to decide whether it will proceed with that proposal.

Ms Short: Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the projections of congestion, we must get more freight

on to rail? We are down to just 6 per cent. now. Does he agree that the opening of the channel tunnel gives us a real opportunity to get more freight on to rail because it can travel much greater distances? Is it not, therefore, a tragedy that track access charges have been set so high, to give a high income stream to Railtrack, that we shall not get that expansion? Will the Secretary of State admit that the pathfinder prospectus makes it clear that the opportunities for an increase in freight on rail are limited and, therefore, that the Government have no expectations that we shall get the expansion that we need?

Sir George Young: I do not think that the hon. Lady does justice to the Government's progress in this matter. We have liberated access to the railways and as a result, two companies, National Power and Direct Rail Services, are now running their own rail freight services under the open access powers in the Railways Act 1993. Since 1979, we have awarded 146 grants with a total value of £100 million at today's prices, securing traffic to rail equivalent to more than 2.5 million lorry journeys per year. I am convinced that, with Wisconsin—an experienced operator, which will bring new ideas, new practices and new successes to rail freight—we shall make further progress in winning traffic back on to the railways and away from the roads.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that only 6 per cent. of freight goes by rail is a crushing indictment of British Rail? Does that not underline the case for privatisation rather than the status quo?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the regime that we are introducing, there is, for the first time, a commercial incentive to win traffic back on to the railways. Wisconsin has that incentive, but that incentive did not, and could never, exist within the nationalised industry. That is why I am confident that the new regime will lead to a reversal of the decline to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Railtrack

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will conduct an environmental assessment of Railtrack's recent decision to require staff to use cars rather than trains when travelling to certain business appointments; and if he will make a statement. [24723]

Mr. Watts: No.

Mr. Khabra: Railtrack's senior management are considering forcing their staff to switch from the railways to the roads, which will cause more pollution and more congestion on the roads. That is a savage indictment of the operation of Britain's railway system, which talks money while we choke. Britain's roads will become more congested and more polluted. How can Minister—or the Secretary of State, with his well-known commitment to the environment—justify that when rail privatisation is directly causing more pollution and will lead to an increase in traffic on the roads, which will be disastrous?

Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman should not believe his party's propaganda. There is no change in policy. Just as


with British Rail, Railtrack's predecessor, there are no specific instructions regarding any mode of travel in preference to another. Railtrack does not require travel by car, but, like any other sensible and well-managed business, it requires its staff to consider cost-effective methods of travel.

Speed Limits

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the advantages of a statutory 20 mph limit in urban residential areas. [24724]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Properly constructed 20 mph zones, with "self-enforcing" speed-reducing features such as road humps, have reduced casualties by 56 per cent., and child casualties by 74 per cent., on average.

Mr. Robathan: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. He will already be aware that the introduction of a 20 mph speed limit is desirable in reducing danger, especially the danger to children playing in the streets. Is he also aware that a recent study has shown that both fuel consumption and vehicle emissions are also reduced by a lower speed limit? Will he therefore look towards replacing the 30 mph speed limit more generally in residential roads, with a standard 20 mph speed limit that might encourage us all to drive a little more slowly and safely?

Mr. Norris: I understand the logic behind my hon. Friend's point. There is all-party agreement that we have seen the value of 20 mph speed limit zones, about 250 of which are now in place, but, from experience, I am sure that the key to limiting speed is setting the limit at a sensible level that is appropriate to the surrounding conditions. For example, when it is patently obvious that a 20 mph speed limit could safely be exceeded, such a limit is likely to lead to more abuse of the system and less regard for the sensible levels at which speed limits are normally set. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I greatly welcome his support for the concept, but I believe that the way in which we are introducing a lower speed limit—in selected areas in which it will make a real difference—is right.

Mr. Flynn: Although the Government and all the others responsible deserve congratulation on the considerable reduction in the number of fatal accidents, especially those involving children, the Minister knows that a car, even if travelling at 20 mph, will fatally injure a child if it is fitted with a bull bar. After hearing representations from his own side, has he changed his mind about my Bull Bars (Prohibition) Bill? Will he now allow it to go through Parliament? Can he tell us when his favourite alternative to that Bill, the European ban, is likely to be enacted, and what percentage of bull bars it will remove?

Mr. Norris: I have seldom encountered an exercise more cynical than that mounted by the hon. Gentleman in support of his Bill, the contents of which, as I suspect he knew perfectly well, were already entirely covered by the Road Traffic Act 1988. I therefore welcome the opportunity to reiterate the fact that I entirely share his view on the principle that aggressive bull bars are not only unnecessary

but should be banned. The hon. Gentleman will know that I reported to the House when I had received some proposed wording from the Commission for amending the external projections directive—and that I look forward to being able to agree a suitable form of words with the Commission in the near future, and to ensuring that that is implemented as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the right way to proceed, rather than trying to use spurious legislation that would add nothing whatever to the United Kingdom's ability to make the change that both he and I wish to bring about.

London, Tilbury and Southend Line

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made over the privatization of the LTS line. [24725]

Mr. Watts: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that bids for the LTS franchise were submitted on 17 April.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As the Minister is aware, Southend is one of the few areas in Britain in which, because of the wholly inadequate service that we have had in recent years, people are looking forward to privatisation. Can he give us some idea of when he expects the new operators to come forward and how they will communicate to the public the benefits that will accrue? Finally, does my hon. Friend see any merit in the idea of holding a public meeting in Southend to enable the new operators to explain their proposals?

Mr. Watts: The award will be made as quickly as possible; my hon. Friend will have noticed that such matters are processed with considerable speed. In considering proposals, the franchising director will have particular regard to contractual commitments to improve the level and/or quality of service beyond that which he specifies. An approach from my hon. Friend inviting the new franchise operator to attend a public meeting to explain the proposals will probably be welcomed by that operator—although of course I do not yet know his identity.

Roundabouts (Safety)

Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve safety at roundabouts. [24726]

Mr. Norris: In line with the Government's policy of reducing all road traffic accidents, safety at roundabouts is kept under constant review.

Mr. French: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in recent years, many roundabouts have been decreased in diameter? Is he conversant with research that shows that, while that may increase the flow of traffic, it also increases the chances of vehicular collision? Will he seriously consider reviewing that policy?

Mr. Norris: Our research suggests that the number of collisions at roundabouts is declining in line with the reduction in collisions generally. I shall, of course, consider the research to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, but I am satisfied from the evidence that I have seen so far


that safety at roundabouts is being dealt with as part of an overall road traffic strategy and that no significant safety issues are involved.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister consider the use of mini-roundabouts, which are over-used and often cause more safety problems than did the measures that previously existed at junctions?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman points to the importance of local authorities, which are responsible for such traffic schemes, bearing in mind the most appropriate way of dealing with traffic problems when they plan schemes. I suspect that, in many cases, he is right. The greatest enemy of common sense in such matters is the assumption that a particular method is a panacea, when it patently is not. An array of traffic calming and directing techniques is available. The hon. Gentleman is right—it is important that local authorities should seek the one that fits the circumstance, not a technique that replaces one problem with another.

Mr. Fabricant: Mini-roundabouts or major roundabouts, will my hon. Friend pay tribute to whoever invented the roundabout? Is he aware that many states in the United States are investing in roundabouts and have renamed them circulatories? Despite the odd name, does not that demonstrate that Britain still leads the way in many things?

Mr. Norris: No, I am not sure that it does. I can claim neither authorship of the roundabout nor the slightest insight into its lineage. I should not be surprised to find that Roman charioteers worked out how to circumnavigate Gates's corner, but in the absence of positive identification, I fear that I must resist my hon. Friend's blandishments.

River Thames

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial decisions he has made arising from the work of his Department's working party on the use of the River Thames. [24730]

Mr. Norris: The River Thames working group was set up to provide advice on ways of maximising the use of the river for transport purposes. I shall consider sympathetically any proposals that may be put to me for furthering that objective.

Mr. Spearing: Has the working group considered the support of provision and maintenance for piers? Does the Minister agree that that would be a major way of reviving the Thames, which we all want? They would cost less than some recent estimates have suggested and could help with seasonal traffic from Greenwich to Hampton court and the central London riverbus service proposed by Transport on Water. Would not such an investigation be superior to the possible sell-off of the piers proposed by the Port of London Authority?

Mr. Norris: I thought that the Labour party was in favour of abolishing peers. To revive passenger transport on the Thames, it is important to ensure that people can access the services sensibly and that services call at the places that people want to go to and from. That is one

of the major inadequacies of the present arrangements. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman understands that the river's meandering route through the capital and its tidal rise and fall make passenger transport on it less viable than we would like. The work that his Transport on Water organisation has done on that is bearing fruit and is being paralleled by, for example, the recent KPMG-London First report that showed that a hopper service for passenger transport on the Thames was practical. I look forward to hearing more about ways in which that can be translated into reality. If that requires support, then, without giving any commitment at this stage, I would certainly be prepared to consider it.

Road Accidents (Children)

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average number of children (a) killed and (b) seriously injured in road accidents per day in the last three months. [24732]

Mr. Norris: Despite a 4 per cent. decrease in the last quarter of 1995, compared with the same quarter in 1994, 86 children were killed and some 1, 500 seriously injured; nearly one death and 16 serious injuries a day.

Mr. Soley: Does the Minister agree that those figures need the widest possible publication? Is not it a fact that the greatest fear for parents when their children walk the streets is not crime, but road accidents, and that that prevents parents from letting their children walk or cycle to school? Is not it high time that we asked ourselves, as a society, whether that is a price worth paying?

Mr. Norris: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I often reflect on the fact that 10 people are killed on our roads every day. While the fact that the figure is substantially less than the 14 or 15 who were killed seven or eight years ago is welcome, it still represents an appalling loss of life. We have become so used to glossing over it that, whereas one death in other unfortunate circumstances can give rise to reams of media interest, these deaths, which happen every day, particularly the harrowing deaths of children, are almost unremarked. The first lesson that we must draw from that is that 95 per cent. of accidents involve human error. They may be errors by drivers or by pedestrians, but where children are concerned, drivers need to understand that a child will not necessarily have the same understanding of road safety and road speeds as an adult and the need for particular care has to be indoctrinated into drivers in those circumstances. We do not have the best record on child casualties, despite our good record overall, and I am concerned that we should undertake research to find out how we can reduce that dreadful total.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Services of the House (Survey)

Mr. Ainger: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, when he expects the Commission


to respond to the opinion survey carried out on behalf of the Serjeant at Arms into hon. Members' views on the services of the House. [24746]

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Commission has not been directly involved in the Serjeant at Arms survey. Any response to the results of the survey will be a matter for the Serjeant in the first instance and for the Domestic Committees in respect of any matters that fall within their areas of responsibility. The Commission is likely to become involved only if Committees recommend significant new expenditure or services.

Mr. Ainger: I am grateful for the response, but I am sure that the Commission would like to comment on one suggestion that came to light during the survey—that members of the public visiting the two Houses should be charged £5 a head. Hon. Members who regularly conduct people around this place or organise guides would be horrified if they thought that schoolchildren were going to be charged £5 a head.
I understand that the survey also showed that it is felt that there are great shortcomings in catering for the general public. Will there be any possibility of the Commission dealing with that shortcoming in the near future? I understand that one suggestion is to use part of Westminster Hall to provide at least a cup of tea and a sandwich for members of the public visiting this place.

Mr. Beith: I understand that the £5 a head suggestion, which has never been considered by the Commission, was merely a report of one of the things said by respondents to the survey. I would not be willing to support such a proposal. As far as possible, the House should make itself available without cost, especially to young people. On catering for members of the public, it is the intention of the House authorities that provision should be made in the new Westminster Hall visitors centre, but the relevant committees have recommended to the Commission that that not be done until alternative provision can be made for staff who use the Westminster Hall cafeteria.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the House is extremely well served by the Serjeant and his staff? The only real criticism that one can make is of conducting a survey of that sort, which merely tends to produce crackpot suggestions, create much dissatisfaction and solve no problems whatsoever.

Mr. Beith: As hon. Members will find if they look at the survey, it revealed a number of services that the Serjeant at Arms would be glad to try to improve, but the staff in the Department will be glad to have the hon. Gentleman's kind words.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman also note that, although a lot of things still need to be put right in the House of Commons, the Serjeant at Arms has one great cross to bear—the fact that there are some fairly intolerable Members of Parliament and, from time to time, some pretty awful staff? The Department deals with that extremely well and quite kindly.

Mr. Beith: That is not a subject on which the Commission would be wise to comment.

Child Care Vouchers

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission how many child care vouchers have been issued since their inauguration; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [24747]

Mr. Beith: There have been 6, 984 child care vouchers issued to 52 employees in the first year of the scheme's operation. The scheme was introduced by the Commission for its staff as part of its policy of equal opportunity employment. The policy was reviewed at the end of March this year, and the views of users and the trade union side were sought as a part of that review. The review's outcome showed that the vast majority of users were satisfied with the scheme, which is meeting their needs by making a wide choice of child care facilities at convenient locations accessible to them. Some suggestions for minor changes in the scheme will be considered by the management.

Mr. Greenway: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that comprehensive reply. Can he tell us how the Commission views the scheme's future? Does it cover hon. Members, or only staff of the House? Are there sufficient qualified child carers available to meet the possible demand by House staff or those who qualify for the vouchers? It has been suggested that some staff have difficulty finding qualified child minders.

Mr. Beith: The survey showed that many of our staff are able to find suitable means of using the vouchers and that the vouchers are popular with them. Whether the scheme will be extended to hon. Members' staff will depend partly on hon. Members—who can, if they wish, use the office costs allowance for that purpose—and partly on the Leader of the House and whether there is any demand for an extension of the allowance for that purpose or for the extension of the scheme to the children of hon. Members.

Members' Dining Room (Staff Conditions)

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proposals he has to improve the working conditions of staff in the Members' Dining Room. [24749]

Mr. Beith: The refurbishment of the Refreshment Department, which the House has approved, will lead to improvements of the working conditions of its staff. Work to improve the central kitchen and the dining rooms it serves, which include the Members' Dining Room, is scheduled to commence next year.

Mrs. Clwyd: That was not quite the answer that I had in mind. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that hon. Members are concerned not only about their pay and conditions but about the pay and conditions of the people who make life more tolerable for us in this place. Will he look into the pay and conditions of the people who serve in the dining rooms—particularly those who work split shifts and do not have adequate rest room facilities? Their rest room facilities have, in fact, got worse.
I am sure that the new catering manager or manageress is a very efficient person, but the stools at the side of the dining room, which people could use to take the weight off their feet when they were not serving at the table, have been taken away. Many people have to stand for long hours in the dining room without resting their feet. Although the catering manager says that the stools look untidy, I do not think that many hon. Members share that point of view.

Mr. Beith: The pay and conditions of members of the Refreshment Department staff compare favourably with those of the rest of the catering industry. The conditions in the kitchens, however, have not been ideal, and that is one of the reasons for the substantial refurbishment I have described.
The other part of the hon. Lady's question relates to a decision taken in 1994 in the Refreshment Department as a matter of day-to-day management. Sitting down during working hours was possible only for staff in the Members' Dining Room. That practice has not been considered by the Commission because it does not raise issues about the general conditions of Refreshment Department staff.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that some members of the Refreshment Department staff are paid more than Members of Parliament?

Sir Patrick Cormack: And the Prime Minister?

Mr. Beith: Yes, in respect of Members of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Transport Links (London)

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss alternative options for the Watford-Harrow-central London rail and tube routes with the management teams before Railtrack's privatisation in May 1996. [24735]

Mr. Norris: London Underground will be giving me a presentation on its proposed Croxley link on 20 May.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the deplorable proposal that the Watford-Euston commuter service should operate every 40 minutes instead of every 20 minutes by the end of this year, which is outrageous and unacceptable to many of my constituents in Harrow, will he give full support to the alternative plans that would link up the tube and the BR lines before privatisation sets everything in concrete and makes it too difficult to go back to that idea? Will he receive, with me, an urgent deputation of the officers of the Harrow Public Transport Users Association to discuss these matters?

Mr. Norris: I shall certainly see my hon. Friend and a delegation, if he wishes to bring it to me. I am aware of the proposition that the Croxley link should be constructed to feed the Watford services into the Metropolitan line more expeditiously than is currently the case. There is a variety of provision in my hon. Friend's constituency. I accept that it has been suggested that some

of them could be run more frequently. My hon. Friend should not take the view that the transition of the train operating companies to the private sector will mean that, thereafter, it will be more difficult to effect commonsense service changes which benefit customers. All the evidence that we have underscored, for example the midland main line announcements of substantial service enhancements by National Express, suggests that, under the new regime, it will be infinitely easier for my hon. Friend to obtain the improvements that he wants than it has been for half a century under nationalised British Rail.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Parliamentary Procedures

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Lord President of the Council what new proposals he has to streamline parliamentary procedures. [24751]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Following the Jopling experiment last Session, the House agreed on 2 November last year to a wide range of Standing Order amendments. I have no further proposals to make at present. If the hon. Gentleman has anything specific in mind, he might like to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Flynn: Was the Lord President present in the Chamber last Wednesday to witness a remarkable and possibly historic event—an hon. Member asking a genuine point of order? As most points of order are found not to be points of order and most business questions are not intended to seek a debate the following week, should not we reorganise our procedures along the lines of those in other Parliaments, which have a zero hour in which Members do not have to go through this rigmarole? While we should avoid the objections to the zero hour in the Indian Parliament to which you have referred, Madam Speaker, it is surely not beyond our wit to have a period of the day in which Members can raise matters of current importance without going through the nonsense of pretending that they are points of order or business questions.

Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee will read the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest. After 22 years here, I rather doubt that, whatever new opportunities we create, we shall stop Members of Parliament using the opportunities that they have made for themselves by free enterprise over the years.

Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is increasingly clear that it is a Herculean task to sustain British interest in the European Union? To that end, will he consider the procedures of this Parliament so that the House of Commons can increasingly add its voice and its votes to guide the Government on our policies in Europe so that, once again, it will be seen that this House speaks for Britain?

Mr. Newton: As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, the Scrutiny Committee is at this moment


conducting an inquiry into matters of scrutiny here. I am due to give evidence to it tomorrow and I believe that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) will do so some time early next month. I shall confine myself, in response to my right hon. Friend this afternoon, to saying simply that I shall study with interest, as is proper, any conclusions and proposals that it makes in due course.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: To return to the original question on streamlining our procedures, will the Lord President acknowledge that some measures which might not appear at first sight to do so would make our work in Parliament more efficient and effective? I am thinking of measures such as improved pre-legislative consultation and greater use of Special Standing Committees. As there has been so little discussion of such proposals, and as the Jopling reforms have been so much welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will the Leader of the House tell us what steps he is willing to take to advance our shared interest in making Parliament work more effectively?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady knows, from the many constructive discussions that she and I have had since she has occupied her present position, that I always try to respond constructively to thinking of that kind. As I have said on a number of occasions, in ways that are open to the Government and that are welcome to the Opposition,

we have manifestly advanced the cause that she has referred to by increasing considerably the publication of Bills in draft form at an early stage—in many cases, even in the Session before we think it may be possible to present them to the House. I shall seek to build on those improvements.

Mr. Fabricant: Did my right hon. Friend have an opportunity to listen to the Second Reading debate on the Broadcasting Bill? Is he aware that, because of the constraints that you laid down, Madam Speaker, even privy councillors had to limit themselves to speaking for only 10 minutes? I believe that that limit meant that they were able to concentrate their minds better, and that they were able to make concise and precise speeches. Does my right hon. Friend think it worth considering a 10-minutes rule for all debates and, possibly, suspending the House if the debate finishes before the allotted hour? Hon. Members could then be present to vote when the Division was called.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether the idea suggested by my hon. Friend is good. The pressure to speak in debate varies quite significantly, so it is necessary to have some flexibility. I think that the way we do business on Thursdays often enables business to proceed for a shorter time, irrespective of whether many hon. Members want to speak. That is, perhaps, a sensible move in the direction that my hon. Friend is advocating.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY

That the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 375) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Question agreed to.

Points of Order

Mr. John Marshall: Having been challenged by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) to produce a genuine point of order, I should like to do so. Yesterday, I was surprised to read in The Mail on Sunday that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) has a research assistant paid for by Mirror Group Newspapers. I was even more surprised when I looked in the Register of Members's Interests and discovered that that had not been reported. Should it not have been reported? I told the hon. Lady that I would be raising this issue at 3.30 this afternoon. Is it not surprising that a great national newspaper should be engaged in a course of action that might be conceived as buying influence in this place?

Madam Speaker: That is not my concern—my concern is that all hon. Members who receive outside finances report it correctly. I am sure that the hon. Member for Redcar will now do so, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded her of it.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Further to that point of order—

Madam Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order. Hon. Members have four weeks in which to report such information, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will take the necessary action. That matter has now been dealt with.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, Etc) Bill

Considered in Committee

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): I ask all hon. Members who wish to take part in the debates to take note on the selection list of the sub-headings associated with all the amendments. These are for the guidance of hon. Members. I say again that Second Reading speeches are not acceptable when we are dealing with specific amendments.

Clause 1

THE ELECTIONS

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 99, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out 'providing' and insert 'electing'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 98, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'delegates', insert 'to a forum'.
No. 97, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out 'may' insert 'shall'.
No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert
'and to create a forum constituted by those delegates'.
No. 109, in clause 2, clause 2, page 1, line 15, after 'returned', insert 'to the forum'.
No. 129, in clause 8, clause 8, page 3, line 24, after 'Ireland' insert 'forum'.
No. 10, in clause 8, page 3, line 24, after 'Negotiations', insert 'and Creation of Forum'.

Mr. Ross: Mr. Morris, I compliment you on this new method of setting out the clauses and the groupings of amendments. It seems to make the purpose of the various groups of amendments clearer than has been the case in the past. We now have some idea of how the Chair views the groups of amendments that are put down. I think that you would agree with me that this will make the debate not only easier to follow but also much clearer to the participants and to people outside.
As will be evident to the Committee, the small amendments standing in my name amount to a simple, straightforward tidying-up operation, intended to make the clause rather clearer than has been the case after defective drafting in the first instance.
All we ask is that an election shall be held in Northern Ireland, not for the purpose of providing delegates, but for the purpose of electing delegates—because that is what will happen. We shall hold an election, we shall elect people to act on this body, and it seems reasonable that we should say that we are electing them and what we intend to elect them to. Amendment No. 99 deals with that point. It says that we are electing delegates to a forum, and asks that the participants in the negotiations shall be drawn from the participants in that forum.
It appears to me—I believe that it would appear to any reasonable person—that, if we intend to elect individuals to a forum, if we intend to ask people to negotiate on behalf of all the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they are of the age of election, they should be the choice of the people, not of some individual.
All that we seek in this small group of amendments is to ensure that the elected delegates shall provide not only the members of the forum, but the negotiators. How on earth could a person who was not elected, had not put himself before the electorate and had not had votes cast for him and for his party, claim to speak for the population?
The Minister should agree that this is a simple, straightforward change; I would be hard put to it to understand how the Government could resist what we are asking for in this group of tidying-up amendments. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister saying on behalf of the Government that they are happy to accept them. They are so reasonable, fair and sensible that no reasonable man or woman could reject them.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 99, placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), are very similar in content to amendment No. 1, which has been grouped with them. Therefore, I join the hon. Gentleman in making a plea to Government to accept that there is much to be tidied up in the Bill.
We accept that the Government were under the whip of the IRA in producing this legislation at the speed they did, because the IRA had told them that they had to specify a date for negotiations to start. They bound themselves to 10 June 1996, so they had to concertina everything to meet the IRA's deadline. That has resulted in some fairly loose and shabby wording in the Bill, which it is a task of this Committee to encourage the Government to tidy up.
The changes suggested by the amendments in the group will not have a major impact, but a basic principle underlies them—that of consent. In the view of my colleagues, the principle of consent is central to the negotiation process, and that consent can be tested by the electoral process, which is designated in the Bill and which permits the testing of the support that can be gained for any proposition.
Therefore, a central feature of the Bill is to provide for elections—not simply for negotiators—and a forum that will be the testing ground for any proposition. That feature is so central and fundamental to the principle of the Bill that it should not be excluded from the purpose as designated in clause 1(1). I am sure that the Secretary of State will accept that it is reasonable to include in the clause an amendment which creates a forum constituted by the delegates who are elected under the auspices of the Bill.
The Committee will note that the hon. Member for East Londonderry and I have not attempted to lengthen the proceedings on matters that are not critical to the Bill. We are simply stating our case, and, in so doing, trusting that the Government will recognise that they should not impose the guillotine: they should allow us to deal with substantial matters of amendment in greater detail. There should be no attempt to cut short a debate that is not only necessary, but, as I think that the Secretary of State will recognise, of value to the Government if they accept the arguments that will be advanced.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I add my support for the amendments standing in the names of the


hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). The function of the Bill is to provide an electoral process, which is an essential insignia or indicia of democracy. The legislation is not intended to provide the means of furnishing negotiators for the purposes of entering into discussions about the possible settlement of Northern Ireland's future problems.
It is worth emphasising that the process seeks to find out what the people of Northern Ireland want: both with regard to those who will represent them in any negotiations and as an indication of support for parties with particular views. That is part of the democratic process, and it is emphasised by the amendments.

Mr. David Trimble: I support the amendments standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I believe that his amendments are eminently sensible, and simply state the purpose of the legislation more accurately than the existing clause 1. It is accurate so far as it goes, but it is not a complete statement of what is in the legislation. I think that it would be better to have a more accurate statement by pointing out that elections will take place for the purpose of electing a forum from which the delegates shall be drawn—that is the effect of my hon. Friend's amendment.
That characteristic of accuracy applies particularly to amendment No. 97. The Secretary of State will appreciate its accuracy if he refers to clause 2(2), which obliges the Secretary of State to invite delegates to participate in negotiations "from among those delegates"—that is, from among the delegates who are returned to the forum. Therefore, my hon. Friend's substitution of "shall" for "may" is absolutely accurate: the use of the word "may" is inaccurate, because it suggests that there is discretion, which clause 2(2) rules out.
In the interests of accuracy, the Government must accept amendment No. 97. They may not be in a position to do so today, as they may need time to think about it. However, upon reflection, I believe that the Government will realise that my hon. Friend is absolutely correct—and I suggest that he is equally correct about amendments Nos. 98 and 99.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members for the clarity with which the hon. Gentleman moved and the others supported the amendments. It is worth reminding ourselves that it is of central importance to the Bill that there shall be an election. The Bill is entitled "Entry to Negotiations", and, as I have said rather frequently, elections are a gateway to those negotiations. They are an important gateway—indeed, the only practicable one.
Amendments Nos. 99, 98 and 97 would change clause 1(1) to read:
Elections shall be held in Northern Ireland for the purpose of
electing
delegates
to a forum
from among whom participants in negotiations
Shall
be drawn.

The points that have been made about amendment No. 99, as I understand them, have claimed that to change the word "electing" to "providing" would be a matter of accuracy. The scheme of the Bill is that parties should be elected and not individuals, although the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has just made the point that clause 2(2) refers to the Secretary of State inviting
the nominating representative of each party for which delegates have been returned
to the forum
in accordance with Schedule 1 to nominate, from among those delegates, a team".
The hon. and learned Member made that point in relation to amendment No. 97, which seeks to substitute "shall" for "may".
Amendment No. 98 would effectively establish the forum as the parent body of the negotiations. The forum would be conceptually intermediate between the elections and the negotiations. The amendment ties in with later amendments that would increase the involvement of the forum in the negotiating process, and would—as no doubt hon. Members will later argue should be done—insert the name of the forum into the title of the Bill.
There is a problem with "shall" and "may", and I understand the reason behind the amendment. Although it is not the intention of the hon. Member for East Londonderry, the substitution of obligatory for permissive language might be taken to work in the opposite direction to clause 2(3), which provides for the exclusion of delegates—for example, from Sinn Fein—in certain circumstances. Amendment No. 97 might suggest that participants in negotiation should come only from the delegates constituting the forum. That may be designed to exclude the possibility of unsuccessful parties having a seat in negotiations as observers, but it would also exclude the Government delegation, on one interpretation.
Amendment No. 1, which was moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), would add to clause 1, as a second purpose of the election—in addition to providing delegates from whom negotiating teams are drawn—
and to create a forum constituted by those delegates".
The forum would then rank on a par with the negotiations.
One is here concerned with striking a presentational balance. All of us who have been involved with the subject for a long time know that we are dealing with a scene that is fraught with suspicion and fears, and, certainly, inspired by hopes. The hope is that we will come through to a process of negotiations that will lead ultimately to a comprehensive settlement, based upon consent. The fears are mutually opposed.
Unionists fear that it is a nationalist intention that, somehow or other, decommissioning of arms shall be postponed almost out of sight in the negotiations; nationalists fear that it is a Unionist intention that the forum shall in some way become a kind of proto-Stormont, to control the negotiations and lead by that route to a restoration of majoritarian rule. Each of those fears is strongly denied by the other side, but that is the conflict of suspicion and fear we face.
The Government therefore feel that it has been important to strike a balance whereby the true purpose of the legislation is set out, as it is in the long title of the Bill. It is a Bill to


Make provision for elections in Northern Ireland for the purpose of providing delegates from among whom participants in negotiations may be drawn; for a forum constituted by those delegates; for referendums in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In using the words "may be drawn", is the Secretary of State referring to delegates from the two Governments alone, or is he now suggesting that negotiators may come from parties that are not elected to the forum?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: No. The Bill provides for the forum to be composed of those who are returned as members of the parties that have been elected. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, under the Bill, members will be elected after the parties have provided lists of those who will represent them.

Rev. Ian Paisley: That was not my point. We know that the forum will be elected, but I was always under the impression in all our negotiations with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the negotiators for the parties would be drawn from the forum alone. The right hon. and learned Gentleman now talks of the Government delegations not being elected. I understand that; I am asking whether the phrase "may be drawn" in the Bill refers only to negotiating delegates.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Yes, it does. There is no obligation for a nominating representative to submit a list, so the phrase is not "shall be drawn", but the wording does mean that those who will comprise the forum will be those who have been returned in the way specified in the Bill.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will eventually have to decide how many persons will be in each negotiating team. He will be aware of press speculation—I put it no higher than that—that there is to be a team of three, with three back-up members. How will he secure those six people if the individual parties do not manage to get at least six elected to the forum? Like everyone in Northern Ireland, he is well aware that there are parties that may well be elected on the regional list—where there can be a maximum of two—but will not be able to get anyone elected under the system that has been designed for the parties in the constituencies.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The provision is for up to three members, but it will be up to the parties to decide how many members they want. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's question.
For reasons that I have tried to explain, I am anxious for us not to elevate the scope and intention of the forum beyond that which, in my view and that of the Government, is appropriate to maintaining the balance that I have described.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State mentioned the introduction to the Bill, which, of course, shows its purpose. That is defined as providing for elections for the purpose of providing delegates for negotiations, and it is stated that the Bill also provides for a forum. However, the clause deals with the purpose of the election, not the Bill's purpose, and that purpose is clear.
First, it is clearly to provide negotiators for the process about which the Secretary of State has spoken. It is equally clear that the purpose of the election is to create a forum in which those delegates will be present. That is outlined later in the Bill. As the purpose of the election is clear, I do not understand why the Secretary of State should be shy about placing that within the clause.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand the way in which the hon. Gentleman puts the matter. Clause 3(1) states:
The delegates returned in accordance with Schedule 1 shall constitute a forum".
That will be the consequence of the election, which will be of parties.
I shall ask the Committee to resist the amendments, whose consequence could be to elevate the function of the forum and the purpose of the election beyond what I have sought to describe. I appreciate that it is a matter of judgment and I do not say that the amendments would affect the legal consequences of the provisions. However, as everyone who has studied these matters knows, I have to have regard to impression and presentation. I shall not extend my reply, because to do that would be to reiterate what I have said. For the reasons that I have given, I invite the Committee to resist the amendments.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, if the elections are seen as some sort of procedural fraud, having no merit in themselves except, as it were, like mayflies to fertilise negotiators and then sink back into the primaeval ooze, many people in Northern Ireland will say, "This whole business is just a procedural fraud, in which democratic procedures are being used to give a veneer of respectability to the effecting of a political purpose that has little or nothing to do with democracy"?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I have discussed this, and I have sought to reassure him that it will not be a single outing for a mayfly during which it can spread its gauzy wings. The forum will continue, with an important role, and the Bill sets out its purposes. It will continue for at least a year. I think that that is a sufficient answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's fears.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I greatly regret that the Secretary of State is not prepared to discuss this matter in depth. I am sure that we all started the debate with a great deal of good will, but if, at the beginning of the debate, we repeat points that have been put to him and the Secretary of State says, "I ask the Committee to resist the amendments and I shall make no further comment, " Northern Ireland Members may as well pack up and go home. I have been here for 26 years and I know that it is unusual at the early stage of a Bill for a Minister to say, "I ask the Committee to resist the amendments, and I am not prepared to answer the arguments."
Unionists as well as nationalists have fears. We have been bombarded by Dublin with vicious, unfair and scurrilous attacks on the idea of a forum and an election. There are people in Northern Ireland who will ask why, in the first stage of the Committee's consideration of the Bill, the Secretary of State cannot accept these amendments—which he accepts will not legally change


anything about the forum—to let Northern Ireland's people know that people are being elected to a forum that will represent the wish of the electorate in Northern Ireland, and that they will express the wish of the electorate. They will be widely drawn.
4 pm
I have been told by other hon. Members that this is a great thing, that it is an innovation, and that, for the first time, we will have people at a forum who never in all their days dreamed that they could get there. When they do so, the Secretary of State seems to be afraid that they might be elevated to some place of pre-eminence above the negotiators, but if the negotiators are drawn largely from the forum—we know today that they will not all be drawn from the forum, that the Government representatives will not be elected, and that other people, who will probably even be defeated candidates wiped out at the general poll, will be nominated with the two delegates from parties that come in the first 10—surely the Secretary of State has nothing to fear from the wide spectrum from which the negotiators are to come. He seems to be afraid of the Unionists, and perhaps he is right, because the Unionist vote might surprise him and the Committee.

Mr. Jim Dowd: I should like to make just a few points. We have much ground to cover in the next couple of days, so I shall not detain the Committee for too long.
This Bill is unprecedented. I do not think there are any precedents—there is certainly none in British history—that we can draw on to discover the substance of the arguments before us. There are no models to which we can readily draw to find out how this was done previously. We are breaking new ground, as much of the discussion and many of the points that have been raised so far on these amendments demonstrate.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that these things are matters of judgment. I make it plain that we, the official Opposition, fully support his judgment about the amendments. When the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) introduced them, I was trying to see the look on his face to see whether he was not being somewhat tongue in cheek in describing them as a mere tidying-up exercise. To put it at its mildest, they are much more than that.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), speaking immediately after him, rightly said that matters of principle were involved in relation to what the amendments seek to achieve. There is no doubt that many principles are involved in all the proposals. Some are valid, and some are not. All are important, but some are more important than others.
The reason why we support the Government's view on this is that we think that the amendments give an unnecessary preference and priority to the work of the forum, which, after all, has a whole clause devoted to it later in the Bill. Clause 3 goes into some detail about the forum's work and purposes, but the amendments give the forum a precedence that, to paraphrase the Secretary of State, would be unhelpful, in that it would confer no advantage in trying to take this process forward.
The process is about electing parties. Hon. Members mention those who will be elected by Northern Ireland's people in the elections in the near future and who will speak as their elected representatives. That is a valid dimension, but it is not by any means the sole purpose.
The purpose of the Bill is essentially a functional one. There are no deeply entrenched principles about how it should work, other than that it should work. It is a mechanism to draw together parties that would not otherwise be together and to try to engage in dialogue and understanding that has not obviously been evident in the past.
I have to say to those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, and those who will represent the people of Northern Ireland in the body that is to be set up, that they will also carry with them the profound hopes of many millions of their fellow citizens in the United Kingdom and from much wider afield, who will have no vote in the election but who wish all its participants well. We are considering nothing less than an integral part of the earnest search for a just and durable settlement, for the benefit of the people not only of Northern Ireland but throughout the UK, Ireland and further afield. We hope that all those taking part will bear that in mind.
The forum is an adjunct to the main purpose of the Bill. It will, as the Secretary of State says, have much valuable work to do, but the Bill is about far more than elections to a forum. We have high hopes of it. The road ahead—the clichés stream effortlessly—

Mr. Robert McCartney: I entirely endorse the lofty sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expresses about the future for peace, but is he aware that, if the Government and the Opposition push ramstam and wholly ignore the views of the representatives of a significant number of people—I am perhaps talking about "a" majority, not "the" majority of the people in Northern Ireland—the lofty objectives—

The Chairman: Order. I made it clear at the beginning that hon. Members must stick to the amendments.

Mr. Dowd: I—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) wishes to carry the people of Northern Ireland with him, but saying that the forum is an adjunct to the negotiating body is like telling the people of Northern Ireland that they can elect a Parliament but that that Parliament does not matter—only the Government matter.

Mr. Dowd: I was somewhat depressed by the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he said that he might consider abandoning the procedures here today if he felt that he was not making sufficient progress. That would be a loss to our deliberations, although I suspect that it is not entirely unprecedented that he should consider such a course.
We are not debating a Parliament. We have to make it perfectly clear that we are not electing a Parliament. The Bill is about parties; it is about trying to bring together parties and the individuals who comprise them to describe a way ahead. The parallels with a Parliament or a wholly representative assembly, whether at the local or national level, are not accurate. This is very much a mechanism, or a means to an end.
Clearly we need to have due regard to democratic principles and practices. In response to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney),


the Committee of course has to have due regard to the opinions and voices not only of Northern Ireland but of the communities that make up the United Kingdom. However, nobody has the right to demand that that take precedence over the judgment of every Member of this House. Every hon. Member has a duty to try to give due weight to what is said by others on behalf of their constituents; but, ultimately, the right to decide rests with every individual, according to the evidence and his best judgment.
As I said, we realise that there are many obstacles, and many things that need to happen. It only needs one or two of those things not to happen for the whole process to come juddering to a halt. However, we set out on this course, if not with optimism, with hope. We sincerely hope that all those taking part in the deliberations—in the forum, in the negotiations and in the plethora of other unofficial organisations that are the inevitable spin-offs of such processes—will genuinely set out to make that process work on behalf of the people not only of Northern Ireland but of a much wider constituency.

Mr. William Ross: I have listened to the two Front-Bench speeches with increasing depression. We were told that the Opposition Front-Bench team supported the Government's judgment. In heaven's name, I have been in this place for 22 years, and I can think of very few occasions on which I have heard the Labour Front-Bench team support the judgment of the Conservative Front-Bench team. So what has changed? What wonderful act have the Government made on this occasion so that Labour—

Mr. Trimble: New Labour.

Mr. Ross: New Labour has got to the point where it is swiping not only the Conservatives' social and economic clothing, but every other thing it can to make certain that, whenever the election comes, it is so much like the Conservative party that it will not be possible to distinguish between them.

Mr. Dowd: The hon. Gentleman asked what is different on this occasion. On this occasion, the Government have come forward with a credible explanation for their position, which has been lacking in so much of the rest of their policies.

Mr. Ross: In those remarks, the hon. Gentleman threw away the principal job of the Opposition: to probe, criticise and expose to the light of day exactly what the Government are trying to do. The Opposition Front-Bench team is very far wrong in its judgment, because it is following the Government's judgment of the matter, which is, of course, so far away from reality that it does not bear thinking about.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman said that there were principles in the amendments and the Bill. The principles in the amendments are founded on normal democratic practice, and the principles in the Bill run directly counter to normal democratic practice. No one can deny that.
The Secretary of State said that they had to guard against elevating the forum. In other words, he was saying that we must elect a body in Northern Ireland and then

bypass it as far as possible. He said that there would be much valuable work for the forum to do, but he has not yet specified it. I hope that, before these debates are finished, he will be able to specify it. I have tabled a number of very sensible amendments, some of which I hope will appear on the selection list tomorrow, so that we may explore matters in the depth they deserve, because there is much that the people of Northern Ireland would like to know.
The Secretary of State also talked about the Government delegation. Surely he meant the two Government delegations. He carefully avoided mentioning the second one. He went further and talked about the forum as a "gateway." It is, of course, a gateway to which all the nationalist parties object. Why anyone in their right senses would want to object to a forum that is democratically elected, heaven only knows—unless they have something to fear or hide.
The nationalist parties, and even the most violent republican parties, just wanted negotiations. They have already managed to get a non-conditional date of 10 June. The timetable, the whole process, is therefore tied to that date. The date was apparently extracted from the Government—whether willingly or otherwise, we have not yet been told—by Mr. Bruton, or so he says in the newspaper articles that I have read. Since we on this Bench happen to believe that this Mr. Bruton is acting as a spokesman for the IRA—

The Chairman: Order. I have some difficulty relating a newspaper article to the very specific amendment that the hon. Gentleman moved with great lucidity. He seems to have drifted away from it a little. Could we return to the amendment?

Mr. Ross: With the greatest respect, Mr. Morris, both Governments are involved. I was referring to the specific date of 10 June, which is written into all the proposed legislation. Although I bow to your judgment, it seems that, if I was out of order, it was by such a teeny-weeny bit that it could have easily been passed by. I regret the fact that you judge that my comments are far from the matters under discussion. No doubt, however, it will be possible to return to those points.
We are setting out to elect people to a forum that will have purposes that have not yet been specified and have not been clearly spelt out on the face of the Bill or in any other documentation. We are told by opposition parties in Northern Ireland that the intention is to limit the forum as much as is humanly possible—in fact, to hamstring it, so that it has no influence, and so that the elections have no influence, on the negotiating positions of the parties. The people of Northern Ireland will be surprised to learn that, because most of them do not yet understand what is being said.
4.15 pm
The Secretary of State also complained about the suggestion of using the word "shall" in place of the word "may." However, if he looks at the end of line 13, he will see that the Bill uses the word "shall". I wonder why the Secretary of State should use the word in one place and object so strenuously to it in another. The word "shall" places responsibility on him. Surely he should make it his business to accept our reasonable amendments.
The Secretary of State said that he was trying to strike a balance. In striking that balance, he has produced legislation that is so woolly that it can mean all things to all men. Given the long record of Government publications that could mean all things to all men, he cannot be surprised if people treat his words and the legislation with the most extreme suspicion.
The Government have been in office for a long time. The Unionist population have not seen anything done by the Government over the years which has helped the Unionist position. They have every reason to view the Government's words and legislation with great suspicion, not least because of the article, which I am sure the Secretary of State has had drawn to his attention, that was published in The Observer yesterday.
I also refer the Secretary of State back to November 1993, when he made certain denials in the House. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) found himself thrown out for accusations he made. Will the Secretary of State now stand by his statements on that occasion?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: I see the right hon. and learned Gentleman nodding. No doubt he will now rise to his feet. However, he will have the greatest difficulty in convincing anyone in Northern Ireland of the accuracy of any statement he may care to make on that subject, today or in future. Over the years, he and the Government have put themselves in a position whereby every single word and act of theirs is treated with the gravest suspicion. That suspicion, in the eyes of the people of Northern Ireland, has a solid foundation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my name. Does he agree that it is a rarity for Labour Front-Bench Members to talk about my leaving meetings when they voted me out of the House because I spoke the truth?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's words will no doubt be heard by Labour Front-Bench Members, and I hope that they will be heard by a wider public. In all truth, people should go back and read the events of 29 November 1993. If the Secretary of State disagrees with some of the things that are being said in the book that is to be published on Wednesday, and if he disagrees with what was in The Observer yesterday, he will no doubt take the appropriate action.
I believe that this legislation has been produced as a smokescreen to provide a gloss of democracy on decisions that have already been taken. I believe that, regardless of what the forum says, regardless of what the greater number in Northern Ireland say, and regardless of the views of the people of Northern Ireland, we shall see the Government trying to impose on Northern Ireland the framework document mark II. That is the reality. [Interruption.] If it is not, it is certainly the reality of the situation as seen by Dublin. We read with considerable care the statements that emanate from there. The Dublin Government are now clearly the joint rulers of Northern Ireland.
In the light of that, despite my grave disappointment in what the Secretary of State has said hitherto, and despite the suspicion with which I view him, I shall continue to listen to what he says; but my judgment will be made not

on his words but on the whole generality of the evidence available to the Unionist population of Northern Ireland in the coming days and weeks.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so anxious to move forward, and unwilling to accept the reasonable changes suggested in our amendment, I am willing to withdraw it for now, but perhaps we may return to the subject on a future occasion. Whether the hon. Member for North Antrim shares my view, and what he intends to do about his party's amendment, is a matter for him.

Mr. Peter Robinson: We are off to a dismal and depressing start, as the Government crank up their bulldozer to push their measure through the House virtually, if not entirely, unchanged. There are two elements in the group of amendments before us, of which one set was tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and the other is in my name.
The Secretary of State raised some technical objections to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, but he raised no such technical objections to my amendment; he simply relied on his judgment—a judgment on which not only he relies, because it now appears that the Opposition too, rely on it. That may cause them some embarrassment in the future, and we shall then be able to remind them how wise their judgment was.
In reality, the Secretary of State's sole reason for not accepting our reasonable amendment is the fact that he wants to upgrade the negotiating part of the process and downgrade the forum. It is therefore clear that those elected to the forum will be second-class citizens to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is rendering much less meaningful the role of the forum in the whole process—a fact that will emerge from subsequent clauses, too.
It has to be said that clearly underlying the process is the fact that the IRA whipped the Government into line concerning the date by which the process had to be under way. Not only have the Government obviously obeyed that whip, by introducing the legislation with such haste, but now we see them again toeing the IRA's line: the IRA has openly demanded that the forum be downgraded, and the Government answer the IRA's call, under threat of IRA violence. That gives a very unpleasant picture of the retreat that the Government are enacting.
I am not prepared to refrain from pressing amendment No. 1. It is so reasonable that the Government should be ashamed of not accepting it, and I hope that no Member will shame himself or herself by voting against it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert
'and to create a forum constituted by those delegates'.—[Mr. Peter Robinson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 217.

Division No. 101]
[16.23 pm


AYES


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Trimble, David


Hoey, Kate



McCartney, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Mr. Peter Robinson and


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Rev. Ian Paisley.






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Gill, Christopher


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Gillan, Cheryl


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Golding, Mrs Llin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gorst, Sir John


Ashby, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Hain, Peter


Bames, Harry
Hannam, Sir John


Benton, Joe
Hargreaves, Andrew


Betts, Clive
Harris, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Harvey, Nick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hawkins, Nick


Booth, Hartley
Hawksley, Warren


Boswell, Tim
Heald, Oliver


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Henderson, Doug


Brandreth, Gyles
Hendron, Dr Joe


Brazier, Julian
Hendry, Charles


Bright, Sir Graham
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Burns, Simon
Hume, John


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Butler, Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Hutton, John


Canavan, Dennis
Illsley, Eric


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jenkin, Bernard


Carrington, Matthew
Jessel, Toby


Cash, William
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Chidgey, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coe, Sebastian
Khabra, Piara S


Congdon, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Conway, Derek
Kirkwood, Archy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Couchman, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Cran, James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Legg, Barry


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Dover, Den
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Dowd, Jim
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Luff, Peter


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
McGrady, Eddie


Faber, David
MacKay, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Mackinlay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Flynn, Paul
Madden, Max


Forman, Nigel
Maddock, Diana


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Major, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Marlow, Tony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gapes, Mike
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gardiner, Sir George
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Michael, Alun





Miller, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Streeter, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mowlam, Marjorie
Sykes, John


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Norris, Steve
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Paice, James
Tracey, Richard


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr lan


Pickles, Eric
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pike, Peter L
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pope, Greg
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Ray


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wicks, Malcolm


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry



Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilshire, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Spink, Dr Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Spring, Richard



Sproat, Iain
Tellers for the Noes:


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Mr. Richard Ottaway and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

THE NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. David Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 136, in page 1, line 11, leave out from 'in' to end of line 12 and insert
'Schedule (Ground Rules for All Party Negotiations), which shall have effect for the purposes of those negotiations.'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 137, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Command Paper 3232' and insert
'Schedule (Ground Rules for All Party Negotiations) '.
New schedule 1—Ground rules for substantive all-party negotiations: The basis, participation, structure, format and agenda of all-party negotiations—

1. The purpose of the negotiations shall be to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands, and to agree new institutions and structures to take account of the totality of relationships.

2. The negotiations shall, in a full and comprehensive fashion, address and seek to reach agreement on relationships and arrangements within Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions there and the Westminster Parliament; within the whole island of Ireland; and between the two Governments, including their relationship with any new institutions in Northern Ireland.

3. (1) Any participant in the strand in question shall be free to raise any aspect of the three relationships, including constitutional issues and any other matter which it considers relevant;

(2). No outcome shall either be predetermined or excluded in advance; and
(3). Participation in negotiations shall be without prejudice to any participant's commitment to the achievement by exclusively peaceful and democratic means of its own preferred options.

4.(1) The negotiations shall be structured so as to ensure that all issues will be addressed in a coherent and efficient manner in three interlocking strands, reflecting the three key relationships at issue, with appropriate distinctions as to participation and procedural arrangements.

(2) Strand One shall cover relationships within Northern Ireland; Strand Two shall cover relationships within the island of Ireland; and Strand Three shall cover relationships between the British and Irish Governments.

5. If appropriate, committees and sub-committees may be established.

6. (1) The conduct of the negotiations shall be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations.
(2) Any reference to, or interaction with, the forum to be convened following the elective process held to determine which parties may participate in the negotiations may take place solely by agreement among the negotiating teams to this effect and only at their formal instigation.

7. Negotiations shall involve the participation, in the appropriate strands, of representatives of both Governments and all those political parties operating in Northern Ireland (hereafter referred to as "the political parties") which achieve representation through an elective process and which, establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process.

8. The participation in negotiations by any party shall require the unequivocal and permanent renunciation of violence.

9. (1) There shall be no limit on the overall size of the negotiating teams of the political parties and the two Governments (hereafter collectively referred to as "the participants").
(2) Notwithstanding subparagraph (I) or any one meeting, unless there is agreement otherwise, participants shall be limited to teams of three, plus three in support (five in support in the case of the two Governments).

10. The negotiating team of each political party shall be designated by the party chairman or leader from among the elected representatives and such teams may be supported in meetings by researchers and others who are not elected.

11. (1) Negotiations shall begin on Monday 10 June 1996 with an opening plenary session involving all the participants in the negotiations.
(2) Each delegation shall have the opportunity to make an opening statement setting out its approach to the negotiations and its position on key issues.

12. (1) The agenda shall have as its first item confidence building issues including permanently renouncing the use of violence, the decommissioning of all illegally held weapons and explosives and the total and absolute commitment to the six principles in paragraph 20 of the Report of the International Body dated 22 January 1996.

(2). Provided agreement is reached on the first item, the opening plenary session shall also adopt, and commit the participants to negotiate, a comprehensive agenda which provides reassurance, both in terms of agreeing to the report of the International Body and ensuring that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered.
(3). This agenda shall include all the significant items which the various negotiating teams consider relevant.

(4) The plenary session shall also decide how to deal with any procedural issues which may require resolution in the negotiations.

13. (1) The structure and process of the negotiations shall be used in the most constructive possible manner in the search for agreement.
(2) Both governments shall therefore use their influence in the appropriate strands to ensure that all items on the comprehensive agenda are fully addressed in the negotiating process and shall commit themselves, for their part, to doing so with a view to overcoming any obstacles which may arise.

14. (1) All participants in the negotiations shall take part in good faith, shall seriously address all aspects of the agreed agenda, and shall make every effort to reach agreement.
(2) They will maintain confidentiality on all aspects of the negotiations except where they may from time to time agree to publicity.

15. If, during the negotiations, any party demonstrably dishonours its commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body by, for example, resorting to force or threatening the use of force to influence the course or the outcome of the negotiations, or failing to oppose the efforts of others to do so, it shall no longer be entitled to participate in the negotiations.

16. (1) Negotiations shall address all three interlocking sets of relationships as a totality.

(2). Negotiations in each of the three interlocking strands shall open on the same day and will proceed in parallel.
(3). Unless otherwise agreed by the Business Committee, negotiating sessions in different strands, or within strands, shall not be held simultaneously in order to allow participants, if they so wish, the option of fielding the same negotiating team throughout the negotiations.

17. (1) Negotiations on Strand One issues shall involve the British Government and the political parties.

(2). Negotiations shall take place on the basis of an agreed agenda and in appropriate formations as agreed by the participants.
(3). Formal meetings shall be chaired by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom operating procedural rules, agreed by the participants.
(4). The Irish Government shall be kept informed of the progress achieved in Strand One through liaison arrangements agreed between the two Governments following consultation with the parties.

18. (1) Negotiations on Strand Two issues shall involve both the British and Irish Governments and the political parties.

(2). Negotiations shall take place on the basis of an agreed agenda and in appropriate formations as agreed by the participants.
(3). Formal meetings shall be chaired by an independent Chairperson operating procedural rules, agreed by the participants.

19. (1) Negotiations on Strand Three issues shall be between the two Governments.
(2) With a view to providing a meaningful role for the political parties, the two Governments shall, during the course of their negotiations:

(i) (ensure regular meetings at which the political parties shall be briefed and, as appropriate, consulted on progress in the negotiations, and at which they shall be able to put forward their views on Strand Three issues under discussion; and
(ii). meet the political parties at their request for further discussion of Strand Three issues.

(3) The outcome of Strand Three shall be considered by all the participants alongside the outcome of the other two strands.

20. (1) The management of each strand shall be for the participants.

(2) Notwithstanding subparagraph (1) above, a Business Committee composed of representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the UK and of the political parties, chaired by the independent Chairman of Strand Two or, otherwise, by any person agreed by the participants, shall be established to co-ordinate the progress and the procedures of the negotiations.
(3). The Business Committee shall not deal with the substance of the negotiations but shall address unresolved procedural issues.
(4). The Committee may also determine the modalities for dealing with any issue which does not fall exclusively within any of the three strands.

21.(1) The negotiations shall proceed on the principle that nothing may be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the negotiations as a whole.
(2) Subject to the above principle, it shall nevertheless be possible, solely on the basis of consensus among the participants, to proceed on the assumption of contingent agreement on any individual aspect of the negotiations.

22. (1) The negotiations shall operate on the basis of consensus.

(2). Notwithstanding subparagraph (1) above, if in Strand One or Two it proves impossible to achieve unanimity, the Chairman may, without prejudice to the provisions of the previous paragraph, operate on the basis of sufficient consensus among the political parties to allow negotiations to proceed.
(3). The rules for establishing sufficient consensus shall be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants and such rules shall ensure that any departure from the rule of unanimity is within minimal limits and shall, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland.
(4). Additionally, as regards Strands Two and Three, both Governments shall have to endorse a particular proposition for it to be deemed to have achieved sufficient consensus.
(5). The overall outcome across all three strands shall also need to attract a sufficient consensus from the participants.

23.(1) Strand One negotiations shall take place in Castle Buildings, Belfast.

(2) Strand Two negotiations shall take place in Belfast, Dublin and London, at times agreed by the Business Committee.
(3). The two Governments shall determine where Strand Three meetings shall take place.
(4). The Business Committee shall determine the venue of its meetings.

24. The outcome of negotiations shall be submitted for public approval by referendums in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, before being submitted to their respective Parliaments for ratification and the earliest possible implementation.

25. Only if a majority of those entitled to vote in Northern Ireland support the outcome of the negotiations in a referendum shall those proposals be put to the United Kingdom Parliament.'

Mr. Wilshire: The length of new schedule 1 impresses even me, but I am happy to confirm that I did not write it. The Government wrote the schedule, which is a key to what these amendments and this new schedule are all about—they seek to turn Command Paper 3232 into legislation. I believe that that is important because doing so will give Parliament a chance to debate the terms of the Command Paper and—if necessary and felt desirable by the Committee a chance to change those details.
The amendments' second purpose is to ensure that the Government get parliamentary approval for the conduct of the negotiations.
I contend that those purposes are very democratic, and, at least in principle, neither of them is controversial. During the course of debate today and tomorrow, we must never forget that the Committee will be debating a fundamental constitutional issue—which is, of course, why it is being debated on the Floor of the House. If we are debating a basic constitutional issue, it is right that Parliament should be able to debate and decide every part of the issue rather than leaving some or all of it to the Government.
I suspect that the Government, in reply to what I have to say, will probably say that these amendments would tie their hands. Because of my well-known reservations about what has been happening in the past 18 months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be surprised to learn that that thought has crossed my mind, and that I do not think it is a bad thing to seek to tie the Government's hands. The way in which matters have progressed over the past 18 months has been a series of concessions to Dublin, in a manner with which I am unhappy. In the past 18 months, time and again, there have been futile attempts to buy peace from the IRA-Sinn Fein. I shall be grateful if these amendments can put a stop to those concessions and attempts to buy peace.
We need new schedule 1 quite simply because the Bill's real purpose is to set up negotiating teams and to carry out negotiations in Northern Ireland. If one reads the Bill, however, it says something about absolutely everything—except about the negotiations. The Bill mentions the method of election in great detail and spells out arrangements for the forum, but it is almost silent when it comes to the exercise's primary purpose—the negotiations. As I understand the situation in the House, if the details of the negotiation are not in the Bill they cannot be debated. Those details—the very purpose of the exercise—do not require Parliament's approval, and that has to be wrong.
New schedule 1 seeks to put matters right. The schedule is essentially—word for word—Command Paper 3232, inserted it into the Bill so that the House can debate it. Of course there is also some legal tidying up in the schedule—of the type whereby "shall" has been put in and "will" has been taken out. The lawyers tell me that those are significant changes, but, as a layman, I am not so sure that they are.
In addition to inserting this "tidied up" Command Paper into the Bill, I have, in doing so, made four major changes of substance. I shall explain them to the House, which I hope will enable us to debate the matter fully.
The first difference between the Command Paper and my new schedule is paragraph 9 of the Command Paper, which becomes paragraph 8 of my new schedule. Paragraph 9 of the command paper says that Sinn Fein-IRA cannot join in the negotiations until the ceasefire of August 1994 has been reinstated. That is the language of the Command Paper. Paragraph 8 of my new schedule says:
The participation in negotiations by any party shall require the unequivocal and permanent renunciation of violence.
The change from requiring simple restoration of the 1994 ceasefire to requiring a permanent and clear statement that this time it is for real is absolutely fundamental to the exercise in which we are engaged.
On Second Reading I asked both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), to confirm that the next ceasefire had to be declared in words of total clarity which made it clear that this time it was permanent and for ever. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor the hon. Lady was prepared to say that. I said at the time, and I repeat now, that I am not prepared to accept that. My new schedule gives Parliament as a whole the chance to say whether it believes that next time any ceasefire must be declared to be permanent.
Let us not forget that the last ceasefire was a temporary truce. It was a ploy. If anyone doubts that, one has only to consider the evidence given last week about the bomber who blew himself up. It was confirmed that the planning and preparation for the bombing earlier this year was carried out during the so-called ceasefire last year. So the first change that the new schedule seeks to make is to spell out that next time any ceasefire will be declared to be permanent.
The second change that I propose is in paragraph 14 of the Command Paper, which becomes in my new schedule paragraph 12(1). The Command Paper says that the opening session of the negotiations will give priority to confidence building. My new schedule changes that to:
The agenda shall have as its first item confidence building issues including pennanently renouncing the use of violence, the decommissioning of all illegally held weapons and explosives and the total and absolute commitment to the six principles".
The Command Paper merely gives priority to confidence building, but new schedule 1 specifies doing certain things. I believe that those things need to be restated in the context of the negotiations because it was originally announced that the first ceasefire had to be called permanent before talks could start. If the House can remember back that far, it will recall that that requirement was abandoned.
My new schedule also says that decommissioning must be dealt with. If hon. Members think back, they will recall that decommissioning was said to be a requirement which must be fulfilled before talks could start. That has been abandoned. Now we are told that the Mitchell six principles must be signed up to. I keep hearing that. My new schedule will make sure that this time we do not have something explained to us which is then abandoned. It will be within the legislation. I consider that that has to be right. We must make it clear that item 1 on the first day will not only give priority to general confidence building, but will do specific things. We spell them out and make it clear that they will not be abandoned. Putting them into the legislation is one way of achieving that. My right hon. and learned Friend may well tell me that there are other ways of achieving that. If there are, I should be delighted to hear them and I should be happy, as I am sure other people would be, to consider alternative ways, but the point that I am getting at is of great importance.
4.45 pm
The third change that I seek to make to the Command Paper is in paragraph 14, which becomes paragraph 12(2) of the new schedule. Paragraph 14 says that, once priority has been given to confidence building, other things will happen at the first meeting. My new schedule says that, provided that agreement is reached on those confidence-building measures, other things will then

happen. This is not merely a debating point. It will not merely make for better legislation. It will not merely tie the Government's hands a bit, which, as I explained, I believe is necessary. We must put it into the legislation because if no agreement is reached on the measures there will be no other talks. If that is the reality, let us reflect reality rather than going for a bit of pious hoping about what might happen. Until the issues of permanence, decommissioning and the Mitchell principles are met clearly, without doubt or fudge, nothing will happen, whether we want it to or not. The third change reflects that statement of reality.
The fourth change that new schedule 1 seeks to make is in paragraph 26 of the Command Paper and paragraph 24 of the new schedule. A new point is introduced in paragraph 25. Paragraph 26 of the Command Paper refers to
referendums in Ireland—North and South".
I do not need to labour the point because one has only to read the Second Reading debate to get the sense of what concerns me. Suffice it to say that in every document that I have ever seen relating to the Northern Ireland peace negotiations, a loose word or a phrase has never been thrown in because no one has got round to thinking it through carefully.
The Command Paper refers to Ireland north and south for a reason. We were not given that reason on Second Reading, although the matter was raised. Unless anyone wants to contradict me, I remain convinced that the phrase was put there to fudge the reality of the sovereign state called the United Kingdom, having Northern Ireland in it. That was put there to fudge the matter because the Dublin Government demanded it and the British Government gave in to that demand to try to keep the peace.
My new schedule corrects the balance and reflects the real world when it says that there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland—which is what it is called—and in the Republic of Ireland—which is what it is called.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fudge of which he speaks has a precedent? The London form of the Anglo-Irish agreement in 1985 referred to an agreement between the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland while the Dublin form was between the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom. That fudge was presumably required by articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution.

Mr. Wilshire: That is correct and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman shares my view that that was not done by accident either. None of these things is done by accident. That is why new schedule 1 is necessary to put this particular mistake right.
The other part of the fourth change that I seek to make introduces paragraph 25 of the new schedule. I wrote the paragraph in at the end of the Government's Command Paper because I was given an assurance on Second Reading when I specifically asked to be told that there would have to be a referendum in Northern Ireland and that a majority of those voting in Northern Ireland would have to be in favour of the outcome of the negotiations for any progress to be made. I was given that assurance by the Government—I believe it, I am delighted and it is exactly what I feel is correct.
Because of that assurance, I assume that the Government will now have no objection to writing it into the Bill. New paragraph 25 says exactly what I heard said during the Second Reading debate—that only if a majority of those entitled to vote in Northern Ireland support the outcome of the negotiations in a referendum shall those proposals be put to the United Kingdom Parliament. That is what I believe I heard from the Government and that is what I believe the legislation should say.
I accept that the amendments and the new schedule join together two separate issues: putting the details of the negotiation into the Bill and changing the terms of the Command Paper. It may be that the principle of putting in the negotiations is acceptable and that the details of my changes are not. We will have the Report stage and the consideration before the other place to put the details right, if necessary. It may be that putting the whole of the Command Paper into law will make for rigidity—I can predict some of the things that will be said—and that rigidity is clearly not an ideal way in which to conduct negotiations.
However, if my chosen way of achieving these things is held to be not the best way, my four concerns that are spelt out in the changes in the new schedule will remain. If the four changes are to be addressed—and there are other ways—I hope that we hear them. We can then decide whether an alternative way of dealing with the four matters can be found over the next two days. If we do not find alternative ways, the next two days could get seriously bogged down because these are fundamental issues and we could face lots more Divisions, such as the one that we have just had.
In conclusion, I believe that the best way for harmony to break out in the next two days is for there to be a helpful start. If the Government could agree with these concerns and deal with them in whichever way they feel to be best, I am sure that that will make for shorter speeches, fewer divisions and a more agreeable two days.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) moved his amendment with characteristic robustness and I listened carefully to what he said. He was right in saying that I might suggest that what he is proposing is somewhat inflexible—indeed, I would go further than that and suggest that there could be serious disadvantages if we were to proceed in the way that he suggests.
I do not recognise in what I see before me in terms of the groundwork paper, the Command Paper, the concessions to Dublin to which he referred. This paper is the judgment of the two Governments as to the basis on which negotiations can be taken forward, but it is important to realise—I shall come back to this point—that the conduct of the negotiations is for those involved in them. I believe that that is an important point, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) appear to agree with that suggestion.

Mr. Trimble: As the Minister says, the paper represents the present judgment of the two Governments. I am sure that he will acknowledge that if and when the

process moves forward and comes into the purview of the parties of Northern Ireland, whatever might have been the judgment of the two Governments up until then will to some extent be replaced by the contribution of the parties from Northern Ireland. As we found in 1992, in many cases the contribution of the Northern Ireland parties will be more positive and a better way of doing things than that prescribed by the two Governments.

Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Member for Upper Bann has to say—indeed, he outlined his views during the Second Reading debate and it was on that basis that I was confident that he, at least, would not wish to see the rules by which negotiations would be conducted written into statute. At the same time, it is right to say that the negotiations are not part of this legislation—I accept that. The legislation is there to provide for entry into the negotiations, but once the negotiations take place they will be for the participants to conduct.
Experience suggests—particularly experience of the 1991–92 talks—that if they are to serve their purpose, the negotiations that we are setting in train need to be flexible and capable of responding to the wishes of the negotiators. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has said that he has wishes that he wants to make known. In addition, the negotiations should not be confined or constrained by statute.
All participants will want to start the negotiations on the basis of a clear understanding of the way in which they are to be conducted. That is why—after consultation with the political parties—we have published the Command Paper that is our best judgment as to the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules. They do not have statutory force because the negotiations, rightly, are not established by statute. I hope that the paper represents a basis on which the parties can agree to participate in the negotiations.
The key message, however—I mentioned this on Second Reading and I repeat it today—is to be found in paragraph 7 of the Command Paper, which states:
The conduct of the negotiations will be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations.
I was interested to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne left that passage in the ground rules that he has sought to bring into statute. There is a contradiction in trying to make statutory something which, in its own terms, allows for the conduct to be a matter for those involved in the negotiations.
It is important to understand that we are trying to seek a new consensus on how Northern Ireland is to be governed and how it fits into the other relationships within these islands. We are seeking an agreed outcome to which the parties representing all parts of the community can give their assent and which is then put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum for their approval. Consensus and consent are essential if this process is to succeed.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister has used rather peculiar language: he said that Northern Ireland fits into other relationships within these islands. Will he and the Front Bench get it through their heads once and for all that the Unionist parties are interested only in Northern Ireland's place in this kingdom?

Mr. Ancram: One of the relationships that has been referred to at times when we have spoken about these


negotiations is the relationship that would exist between institutions in Northern Ireland and institutions in this Parliament. That is an example of relationships within these islands. It has been accepted for a long time that if we are to find a comprehensive answer, the relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—and, indeed, the relationships between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom—are also relevant. A number of relationships have to be taken into account.
I was making the point that if the negotiations are to succeed they must be based on consensus and agreement. If that is to be achieved, the greatest degree of flexibility to allow that to occur is necessary.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the Minister appreciates, as do all hon. Members, that there are certain of these proposed ground rules—such as the renunciation of violence and the acceptance of the democratic principle—to which there must be an absolute commitment in order to participate. Does the Minister agree that it would not be necessary for every participant in the negotiations to agree to every ground rule in order to enter into negotiations and to participate?

Mr. Ancram: I believe we mentioned that on Second Reading. According to the ground rules, the participants must agree among themselves before the negotiating process begins what agreement will mean in the negotiating process. It is important that, before negotiations take place, we are able to agree on the way in which consensus—or sufficient consensus, as the Command Paper suggests—can be ascertained. Again I quote paragraph 7:
The conduct of the negotiations will be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at one stage described the negotiators as masters of their own procedures; I believe that that is correct, and that is the way in which progress can be made with such negotiations.
I will discuss some specific points in a moment, but first I shall say that this process, by its nature, is unsuitable for tight statutory definitions and procedures. All those likely to be involved in it would agree that there must be flexibility.

Mr. McCartney: indicated assent.

Mr. Ancram: I see the hon. and learned Member for North Down nodding again.

5 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend spoke about referendums. A lot of my colleagues and hon. Friends have been stunned by the reference in one of the documents to holding referendums in "Ireland—North and South". My understanding is that there is the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom is one entity and the Republic of Ireland is another entity. If one is talking about "Ireland—North and South", the implication is that Ireland is about to become that entity. My right hon. Friend will understand that that is very disconcerting for a large number of colleagues in the House. Will he explain?

Mr. Ancram: If I may, I will explain later, because my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne raised this as a

specific point and I wish to discuss his points in the sequence in which he raised them. I can say at this stage that if the interpretation by hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) were correct it would indeed be stunning, and I hope to satisfy him that it is not correct.
I am saying, in essence, that I believe that amendments Nos. 136 and 137 would constrain the process of negotiation. The negotiations must proceed at a pace and in a manner that the negotiators are happy with. We have set out our best judgment in the Command Paper, but if the negotiators themselves, by agreement and consensus, find it better to proceed differently, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so.
I therefore urge the Committee not to make what will already be a difficult enough task more difficult by accepting the amendments, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will understand the value of the remarks that I have made in this context and will be prepared to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne firmly drew our attention to areas of the ground rules that he wished to amend. I hope to answer his points. The first related to his new paragraph 8, which would provide that participation in negotiations by any party would require
the unequivocal and permanent renunciation of violence.
That would move away from the need for the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of 1994. In replacing paragraph 9 of the ground rules with what appears to be the rather simpler approach of paragraph 8 of the new schedule, there is a risk that some key elements have—unintentionally, I am sure—been abandoned. I cite, for example, the lack of a clear link to events on the ground.
We know from experience—I believe that it was mentioned on Second Reading—that Sinn Fein as a party is adept at claiming to be committed exclusively to peaceful means. For reasons that we well know, it is vital, in our view, and in the view of the Irish Government, that Sinn Fein' s participation in negotiations be accompanied by an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire. On further commitment to peaceful means, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne by saying that the fact that at the start of the negotiating process all participants will have to commit themselves totally and absolutely to the six Mitchell principles will more than cover the areas that he mentioned.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that Sinn Fein constantly attempts, when it suits it, to put clear blue water between itself and the IRA. The Government have always taken the view that the two are inextricably linked. Given the comments that he has just made, do the Government adhere to the view that they are so inextricably linked as to be one and the same organisation?

Mr. Ancram: That question has been asked several times. I believe that it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who said that members of one are members of the other. The key is to consider what members of Sinn Fein, if they were to be invited to the negotiations, would have to commit themselves totally and absolutely to. I shall not go through all six principles because they are available to hon. Members, but I remind them that members of Sinn Fein would have to commit themselves to


democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues
Another of the principles is:
To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the outcome of all-party negotiations".
I believe that the fears that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, is expressing are covered in those principles, enunciated by Senator Mitchell in his report of 24 January.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows what Gerry Adams said a few hours ago—that he would present himself, with his delegates, at the negotiating table on 10 June, that he would not tolerate any conditions whatsoever, and that he would have a mandate. He said that he would also demand that the negotiations should deal with the republican consensus—that would be its business—and with getting British rule out of Ireland.
If those are the remarks that Mr. Adams made—they were widely reported everywhere—how, in the name of goodness, will the Secretary of State decide on 10 June if some other statement is made by the same gentleman, if one can call him a gentleman, that things are different and that those people have forsworn their violent ways and violent manners?

Mr. Ancram: I do not want to pre-empt discussions later in the debate on the clauses about the qualifications on my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State inviting parties to participate in or send negotiators to the negotiations. I would say, however, that the two Governments have said—it is part of the Command Paper and part of the communiqué—that Sinn Fein could not be involved in a resumption of ministerial dialogue, or participate in negotiations, without an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. So the gentlemen to whom the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) refers may talk about coming to the negotiations, but both Governments have made it clear that being invited to participate in the negotiations requires a total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles and, as we shall see later, that must be reiterated at the opening of negotiations. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the Command Paper rather than necessarily listening to some of the rhetoric that may be being spouted on the radio and elsewhere outside the House.

Mr. Wilshire: I want to take my right hon. Friend back to a point that he has made again in reply to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Did I hear him correctly when he said that everyone who takes part in the negotiations will have to sign up to every last one of the Mitchell principles, without exception or qualification? If that is so, can he confirm that each and every person taking part will have to do that before anything else happens?

Mr. Ancram: I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 12 of the communiqué between the two Governments, which makes it clear that all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and

non-violence set out in the report of the international body. On Second Reading, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State read those six principles into the record again, to make it completely clear that those are the six principles to which total and absolute commitment by the participants would be required.

Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, before Sinn Fein-IRA can participate in any discussions following the elections, they must sign up to every one of the Mitchell principles without qualification? Is that the position—yes or no?

Mr. Ancram: My hon. Friend should look closely at the communiqué, which makes the position clear. I shall develop that point later as he has asked a proper question. The communiqué makes it clear that there must be total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles at the beginning of the process if those making that commitment are to continue to participate in the process. That point has been clear for a long time—certainly since 28 February—and it is reiterated in the Command Paper in order to make it clear beyond peradventure that it is not simply the statement of the two Governments, but is part of the ground rules that we hope will provide the basis for beginning the negotiations.

The Chairman: Order. Before the Minister goes any further, I remind him that we shall be dealing later with amendment No. 2, which appears to refer to some of the detail and covers some of the issues being addressed by hon. Members.

Mr. Ancram: I seek your guidance on that point, Mr. Morris. As the new schedule introduces all of the provisions, I am uncertain as to whether I am duty bound to respond to comments about them.

The Chairman: The Minister is quite right: the new schedule is far reaching. However, if a Member takes an intervention and realises that the points will be covered by subsequent amendments, he or she should decide whether to resist responding to that intervention.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris, for offering that gentle advice. I shall try not to cover areas to which we shall return when considering later amendments.

Mr. Marlow: In the interests of clarity—we do not need to read out the text again—will my right hon. Friend confirm whether the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is yes?

Mr. Ancram: Yes. I have said that the participants—the parties to the negotiations—will be required to make clear their total and absolute commitment. I do not think that I can say more than that: it is clear not only on my part, but on the part of the two Governments and in the Command Paper. I hope that that is sufficient reassurance.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will recognise that the first change to the Command Paper would not necessarily help—in many ways it would be more restrictive than the existing provisions.

Mr. William Ross: I seek the Minister's assistance with one or two matters about which I am not clear.


He referred to participants having to sign up to many wonderful things. Do "participants" mean a party or parties, individuals, or both? In either case, will the commitment that is given be in much stronger and clearer terms than the existing declaration for those who serve on councils?

Mr. Ancram: It means the parties to the negotiations—which is not just the political parties, but the two Governments.

Mr. Ross: And the individuals?

Mr. Ancram: The delegates to the negotiations attend on behalf of their parties.
In the light of your comments, Mr. Morris, I shall not detain the Committee unnecessarily. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne referred to two sets of changes, but I shall deal with them as one. They deal with the ways in which the process will move forward after the beginning to which I have referred. The communiqué and the ground rules make it clear that at that stage the Mitchell proposals on decommissioning and the other confidence-building measures must be addressed.
When we discussed the matter recently on Second Reading, the general view of the parties and certainly that of the hon. Member for Upper Bann—he is not in his place at present, but I am sure that he will not mind my referring to his remarks on that occasion—was that we must be clear before 10 June about the procedures that will be adopted. In replying to the debate, I said that there must be further discussion and consultation with the parties in order to determine how the procedures will operate.
5.15 pm
I do not think that it serves any great purpose to lay down hard and fast rules in this place before those consultations take place and different views are expressed. I think it is correct to proceed on the understanding that we must be clear about the matter before negotiations begin. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the strength of that argument—it was employed with effect by the hon. Member for Upper Bann in his speech last Thursday. My hon. Friend should recognise that his suggestions are perhaps not the best way to proceed.
I turn now to the point that my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North—who has now left the Chamber—raised about the referendums, which are referred to at the end of the Command Paper. Paragraph 26 of that paper reaffirms the intention already made clear by each Government respectively—I emphasise the word "respectively". In October 1994, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that any outcome agreed by the parties would be submitted to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum for their approval before being put to Parliament. That makes it clear that there will be a referendum on the outcome of the talks held in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland to agree or disagree to the propositions being put forward before the matters may come before Parliament. That was the position set out by my right hon. Friend some time ago and it remains the position today.
Equally, it is common ground that a successful outcome would require, among other things, constitutional change in the Irish Republic. That, in itself, would require a referendum. Therefore, the two Governments have stated that the outcome of the negotiations will be submitted for public approval by referendums in the north and in the south which will come under the jurisdiction of each Government respectively.

Mr. Wilshire: As to my right hon. Friend's point about a referendum in the south, I did not refer to that for the simple reason that I consider it impertinent to mention the internal affairs of a foreign country—and I wish that Dublin would have regard to that principle when it comes to Northern Ireland affairs. As well as restating that there will be a referendum in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend put me out of my misery by confirming that, if the referendum does not produce a majority, the matter will not be brought before Parliament?

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the triple locks: the requirement for the agreement, first, of the parties; secondly, of the people of Northern Ireland by way of a referendum; and thirdly—and in that order—of Parliament. My hon. Friend is correct: if the people of Northern Ireland were to vote against the propositions, they would not be brought before Parliament.
Although my hon. Friend says that he does not wish to intervene in the affairs of another country, it is important that he should appreciate that the negotiations and the balance of the package might require changes to the Irish constitution, which in turn would require a referendum in the south. It is therefore not possible to look at these matters in isolation, even though we might like to.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that words are very important when it comes to the confidence-building measures. Reference was made earlier to referendums in "both parts of Ireland—North and South", or words to that effect, rather than in the Republic of Ireland and in Northern Ireland. The Minister must appreciate that the terms of the Downing street declaration gave great offence to an overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland as that document never once referred to the British citizens of Northern Ireland. That confidence-building measure appears to be absent from the terms of this document also.

Mr. Ancram: The word "respectively" is there for a good purpose, but I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman from the Dispatch Box that a referendum will be held in Northern Ireland, which will require the assent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, if any proposition is to proceed to Parliament as a result of the negotiations.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry, but I had to nip out for a second. I do not think that my right hon. Friend answered the point that I made. Would it not have been more straightforward, traditional, and clearer and easier for his colleagues on this side of the House if instead of reading "Ireland—North and South" the document had read "Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic". Why did it not say that?

Mr. Ancram: It might, in some circumstances, have been easier, but it does not say that. From the Dispatch


Box, I am trying to explain to and, I hope, reassure my hon. Friend that his concern is ill founded and that the unease that he feels as a result of the misinterpretation is therefore not merited.

Mr. William Ross: As the Minister has proceeded, some of us have felt more and more disquiet. It seems that in this instance the Government are leaning over backwards to adopt the language of the most violent of republicans. It is the sort of language that we hear from Sinn Fein, the IRA and occasionally from those close to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). We all know that the Government do not use that sort of language without thinking about it. There must have been some reason for using that language and we simply have not been given a reason. Why will the Minister not tell us why those words have been used rather than the correct appellations? All that the Minister is doing is increasing our suspicions.

Mr. Ancram: The language is not new. If my memory serves me right, the hon. Gentleman will find similar language in paragraph 4 of the Downing street declaration of 15 December 1993.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: Let me complete this point, because it is important. The Government are responsible for this jurisdiction and I say from the Dispatch Box, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said before, that any proposition or agreement that comes from the negotiations will be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, and only if it passes that referendum will it proceed to this Parliament. It is my understanding that to make constitutional changes—which might be, especially in the eyes of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), an important part of a settlement—will require a referendum in the south. That is a matter for the Irish Government, but I understand that that might be necessary. Therefore, they have said in their turn that they would also hold a referendum.

Mr. Taylor: The term "Ireland—North and South" has created much unease in Northern Ireland. It is not a confidence-building term, and it is causing increasing unease on both sides of the Committee this afternoon. Under the Ireland Act 1949, the term "Republic of Ireland" is defined in the legislation of this nation. In what legislation is the term "Ireland—South" defined?

Mr. Ancram: At the moment, I cannot say more than I have said. We are not considering legislation.

Mr. Taylor: We are.

Mr. Ancram: No. I have advised the Committee that the term should not be brought into the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne is trying to make it part of the legislation and I have said that I do not think that it should be part of the legislation. I have been asked a direct question about what the reference to referendums "respectively" in the north and south means and I have given a complete and categorical answer. I cannot give greater reassurance than that because there is no greater reassurance available.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: I must draw my remarks to a conclusion, but if the right hon. Member wishes to speak, I will give way.

Mr. Taylor: I simply wish to pursue the matter. The Minister has dodged my question by saying that we are not considering legislation. But we are considering a Bill that makes specific reference to Command Paper 3232, which uses the term "Ireland—North and South". I ask the Minister to tell the House under what legislation the term "Ireland—South" is defined and in which counties will a referendum be used?

Mr. Ancram: So far as I know, the term has not been used. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that Command Paper 3232 is not part of the legislation. The legislation refers to identifying negotiations in terms of the Command Paper, but the Command Paper is not part of the legislation. Indeed, a later amendment will further specify the connection between the legislation and the Command Paper. I hope that we can deal with the subject when we come to the later amendment.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as ever, intends to be completely and totally helpful. I will give way, but we should try to bring this part of the debate to a conclusion.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister confirm that if he had wished to introduce such terms in the legislation, they would not have been acceptable, and that it would therefore not be acceptable for Ministers to use them in the House in general debate?.

Mr. Ancram: I would take advice from the draftsmen, but the hon. Gentleman is probably right that there are terms that are used in legislation, but the Command Paper is not part of the legislation and I am resisting the attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne to make it part of the legislation.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: Yes, as we are in Committee.

Mr. Ross: If the Minister has now admitted that the terms could not be used in legislation, he has also admitted the sensitivity of the language used in the Command Paper. Would not it be wiser, for the sake of everyone, for the Minister to be precise and accurate in his language at all times, instead of using the woolly terms that are designed by republicans to cause maximum offence to the Unionist population, and indeed do?

Mr. Ancram: In the light of this debate, I will try in future to use language that is accurate in the terms that the hon. Member has suggested. The whole process will have to operate by consensus and on the basis of careful balance.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister is in, but he must also appreciate that those


words have a real significance in Northern Ireland. If the Minister is keen to instil some confidence in the Unionist population, all Ministers in all documents should stick to the legal terms, "Northern Ireland" and "Irish Republic". If they did that, especially in documents in which the Irish Government have a say, we would see a real difference in perception by the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ancram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I hope that the clear indications that I have given from the Dispatch Box have left him in no doubt about what the language is intended to mean and that he will help me to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are fully aware of that position.
We are involved in a balancing exercise and there must be a degree of flexibility. I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne that in my view his amendments would not make the process of reaching a result easier—as he and I would wish. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend will seek leave to withdraw his amendments.

Mr. Eric Illsley: The Opposition cannot support the amendments; if they were pressed to a Division we would not support them. We believe that the ground rule document is clear. It is described as
the best judgment of the two Governments on the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules
that can be produced for the elections. The Government have tried to reach a consensus. They have consulted all the political parties to try to achieve agreement. It would be unfortunate if we were now to be delayed by the incorporation of the new schedule. It would be debated at length as part of the legislation and, perhaps, lead to further delays.
As the Minister pointed out, paragraph 7 of the Command Paper states that the rules for the negotiations will be left to the parties themselves to organise and negotiate. If I heard him correctly, he also said that there would be further consultations between now and 10 June, when those negotiations will take place. So, after the Bill has been passed, there will be further opportunities for the political parties to put forward their points of view on the ground rules.
The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that parliamentary approval should be required for the ground rules. In our opinion, the Minister made the status of those rules clear today, as did the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and we feel that they are the best that could be achieved. If parliamentary approval were sought for the new schedule, it is unlikely that any further consensus would be achieved: it is obvious that it is simply not there.
5.30 pm
The hon. Gentleman cited four respects in which his new schedule differed from the existing ground rules. He made great play of the question of the ceasefire and the report of the international body. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State made it plain that all participants would be required to accept the principles of the Mitchell commission. Paragraph 13 of the ground rules quotes the communiqué of 28 February, which states that
all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body.

It has been made clear throughout today's debate, and on Second Reading, that those requirements would be in place. If they were not, the negotiations would not take place, because the other parties would not take part unless such commitments were given by all participants.
We cannot support the wording of paragraph 25 of the new schedule. I understand that further amendments, to be debated later today or tomorrow, will enshrine the principle it sets out, but we cannot accept the requirement for a majority of those entitled to vote; we believe that the majority should be of those voting.
As I said, if the amendments are pushed to a Division, we will not support them.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said at the beginning of his speech that he was happy to confirm that he had not drafted the new schedule. I understand why he would want to dissociate himself from it. I agree with him that it is valuable for the participants to have clear ground rules in the Bill, but the ground rules in the new schedule—taken almost directly from the Command Paper, which itself resulted from the consultation on the ground rules produced by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—are so flawed that even the hon. Gentleman's most valiant efforts would not enable them to be sufficiently sanitised to become part of United Kingdom legislation.
The wording of one small part of the new schedule has been referred to in detail. A number of hon. Members have taken offence at the use of such terms as "Ireland—North and South", although there is nothing new about them: they have featured in documents that the Government have been prepared to sign in the past. During the last series of talks, I spent no end of time trying to remove terminology of that kind. Those who produced the ground rules that gave rise to the Command Paper and the new schedule knew full well that they were using wording that was unacceptable to the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland—and, I suspect, to a large section of the community of the United Kingdom as a whole—but they also knew the purpose of that wording. They knew that the words, "Ireland—North and South" suggested the existence of a political entity known as Ireland, when no such entity exists.
The draft consultation paper produced for the ground rules contained terminology such as
among the people of the island of Ireland",
which suggested that there was one people on the island of Ireland. There is nothing of the sort, and I was glad to note that, when that offensive language was brought to the Minister's attention, he made efforts to ensure its removal. I hope that, now that the House has drawn his attention to the degree of offence caused by the terminology in the ground rules and the new schedule, he will fight with equal vigour to ensure that it, too, is not used again.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Would not it have been impossible for the Government of the Republic of Ireland to agree with Her Majesty's Government on the ground rules if the term "Northern Ireland" had been used? To accept in any form that Northern Ireland exists as part of the United Kingdom would be contrary to the claims made in articles 2 and 3 of its constitution, which the Irish Supreme Court has defined as a constitutional imperative.

Mr. Robinson: That is undoubtedly true. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic would not have been prepared to use the terms "Irish Republic" or "Republic of Ireland"—usage that would be acceptable to those drafting legislation for the House of Commons. May I make a minor correction? The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the two separate covers for the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The cover for the Irish Republic was that it was the Government of Ireland, and the agreement was between the Governments of Ireland and Great Britain.
We must examine the precise words that are being used. Over the past few minutes, the hon. Member for Spelthorne has repeatedly sought to extract from the Government confirmation that, before they could move any further, all those who would be present at the negotiations would be required to sign up to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the international body.
The communiqué says that the participants
would need to make clear
their commitment to those principles. That is not the most precise language. I "would need" to be in bed early tonight, but that does not mean that I shall; indeed, it is most unlikely that I shall. Simply to say that something "would need" to happen does not suggest any precise requirement. That is why, on Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) suggested that the word "must" should be substituted—a suggestion that was not taken up by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Later amendments will attempt to make the wording much more precise.

Mr. Illsley: The communiqué states that
all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment".
That could be taken to mean clarifying a commitment that was given before the start of the negotiations.

Mr. Robinson: It could mean a good many things: that is the problem. Given the importance of the matters with which we are dealing, I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne that it is important for us to know precisely what the criteria are. His new schedule is intended to lay down the criteria that would move the process forward. As the Minister has made clear, there are other ways of doing that, and such attempts will be made later.
I have not emerged from the mood of depression. Although the Minister was encouraged by the hon. Member for Spelthorne to say that, if he did not intend to approach the issues by way of a new schedule, he would at least address them by some other means, unfortunately, he was not prepared to take up that opportunity.
The language of the Command Paper is flawed, and my colleagues and I have made it clear that we would rely on the terms of paragraph 7 of the ground rules, which state:
The conduct of the negotiations is to be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations".
We have made it clear that we do not accept the ground rules and that we and all other participants in the negotiating process will look at an early stage at agreed ground rules for the process. For those reasons, I cannot support the precise wording of the proposed new schedule and, if it is pushed to a Division, I shall not support it. However, I support the purpose behind its introduction.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The new schedule gives us an opportunity for wider debate on many of the ground rules.

Some of the issues that emerged from the Minister's initial response were most disturbing and they will have increased unease in Northern Ireland. First, it is becoming quite clear that he is thinking in geographical terms about the island of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland and not in constitutional or legal terms. When he uses the term "Ireland—North and South" he is using it geographically. There is no definition in law or in our constitution—or in that of the Republic of Ireland—defining Ireland, north or south.
For the people of Northern Ireland—which is the proper term—Ireland, south is Cork and Ireland, north is Donegal. Those are geographical terms and they are all that the Minister is using. It is not good enough to ask hon. Members to agree to a process that is based simply on geographical terms, because each one will interpret the geography differently. The Minister has not accepted the challenge to define Ireland, south. Is it just Cork and Kerry or is there more to it? It is time that the Minister told us. He should not sit in silence. We ask him to respond.
My second point centres on a matter of even more concern. When the Minister spoke about the Mitchell principles, it emerged that the members of the new forum will not have to subscribe to them. I do not think that many people in the United Kingdom have fully grasped that reality. What is even worse is that members entering the negotiations will not have to subscribe to those principles as individuals. That will be done simply by their parties. That was news to me, and it will be badly received in Northern Ireland that each person entering the negotiations will not have to subscribe to the Mitchell principles. Members elected to local authorities are required individually to subscribe to certain documentation. It is not done by the parties on their behalf, but in this case the Government have apparently opted out of individuals' subscribing to the Mitchell principles: it will be done by the secretariat or by party leaders. I want a response to that issue.

Mr. William Ross: Although my right hon. Friend is aware of this, perhaps we should remind the House that some people in Northern Ireland have always been able to say that they took oaths with mental reservations. It will be perfectly plain to everyone that it will be much easier to have a mental reservation if a party leader rather than the individual gives the commitment.

Mr. Taylor: It might not even be the party leader. It is left open to the Secretary of State to invite someone whom he assumes to be a party leader to make decisions on the party's behalf.
The new schedule contains a matter that I mentioned on Second Reading, and I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has repeated it. Paragraph 1 rightly refers to relationships between,
the peoples of these islands".
As the Government now prefer to use geographical rather than constitutional terms, I can say that we are discussing an improvement in relationships between the peoples of the British Isles, because that is what the paragraph means in geographical terms.
However, paragraphs 2 and 4(2) show that the hon. Member for Spelthorne, like the Government, has narrowed the wider and more important issue of


improving relationships between the peoples of the British Isles so that it is restricted solely and totally to covering just the relationships between the two Governments. Paragraph 2 mentions just "the two Governments" and paragraph 4(2) refers to relations
between the British and Irish Governments".
I regret that, and it is one of my reasons for not supporting the new schedule. In the wider negotiations that should take place in which all issues should be addressed, an important matter is the improvement in relationships between the peoples of these islands. It should not be restricted simply to the two Governments talking to each other.

Mr. Wilshire: I think that the Minister tried twice to pay me a compliment when he said that I was being robust. I warn him that I consider that to be my moderate approach and that he may wish not to find me in a robust mood. The Minister said that there would be a serious disadvantage in accepting my amendments and the new schedule; but there will be a disadvantage if we do not, because we will have missed the chance to curb the Government's over-enthusiasm in negotiating. Despite my reservations, neither the Ulster Unionist party nor the Democratic Unionist party are prepared to support me and, in terms of the principle, I know when I am beaten.

Mr. Robinson: We support the principle.

Mr. Wilshire: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will vote for me if I get around to forcing a Division.
I raised four issues and the Minister dealt with some of them more fully than others. I say that gently. On the matter of permanence and my insistence of a declaration on that, I think that the Minister said that I was being too simple and that my language left something to be desired. One must be careful not to confuse simplicity with clarity. I do not see what could be clearer than my phrase, "permanent renunciation of violence." The Minister said that Sinn Fein/IRA are past masters at exploiting vagueness. My clarity of phrase should, therefore, have commended itself.
Despite what I have heard in the debate, I still think that the six Mitchell principles are not enough and that permanence must be included. However, it is clear from the amendment paper that we can return to that matter. As for the two items that I raised about the negotiations' agenda, may I say a simple thank you to my right hon. Friend the Minister for saying, "Yes, they must sign up to Mitchell six." That is important. I know that it might have taken us slightly longer than we would have liked, but we got the simple word yes, which is important. I hope that that message goes out from here. Now that we have reached the stage of saying that those people must sign up to that principle, I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree that my new clause 2 is the ideal way in which to give effect to their having to say yes.
On the referendum issues, I wish that I could buy the argument that the reference to "Ireland—North and South" was simply sloppy drafting, but nothing that I have heard persuades me that it is as simple as that. Again, may I simply say thank you to my right hon. Friend for the assurance that, if there is no majority in a referendum in Northern Ireland. matters will go no further? We have clarified that point.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), who spoke for the Opposition, explained that he could not support my amendments and went on almost to apologise for that. It is a strange old world when the Labour party apologises to me for not agreeing with me, but I understand his point. At a slightly more serious level, he said that the Bill as it stood was the best that could be achieved. That is what is wrong with so much of the negotiating that has taken place. Some people are prepared to approach the matter by saying, "If we cannot achieve that, so what? Let's give up." I worry when a Labour party spokesman says that this is the best that can be achieved.

Mr. Illsley: Just to clarify the matter, I intended to say that the ground rules—not the legislation—were the best that could be achieved after the Government's discussions with the political parties.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful for that. That sorts that issue out, but it is important not to signal to anyone that there is nothing on which we are prepared to say no and mean it.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman has just touched on an important point. Many people wonder why we must always steer a middle course, trying to please all people and to be all things to all men. That is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government; their role should be to protect the Queen's realm across the board, in every detail. The Government have signally failed to do that in relation to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Wilshire: That is exactly the point that was at the back of my mind. To start with, I thought that that was what the Opposition were suggesting. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central then made it clear that that was not his point, so I let matters rest, but I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). That is why I was so concerned when I heard the phrase.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that I did not write the new schedule and that even I could not sanitise the document. When he went on to express some of the detail, I became pleased that perhaps the Command Paper's detail would be dealt with at some other time so that some of us might not necessarily have to sit through it, but I understand his concern about the phrase, "You need to do something" and I hope that the phrase, "Yes, they must sign up" goes some way to meeting that concern. He explained that he could not support me. As I did not vote with him earlier, I cannot complain about that.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) simply said that the amendments provided a chance to have a wider debate on some issues and that the debate had increased unease rather than resolved some of it. What I have heard and, perhaps, he has heard means that the Committee's later debates now take on a greater urgency and importance and will have to be fought hard.
As for my new schedule, we are at an early stage in the debate. I made four requests and raised four points. Two have been dealt with satisfactorily, for which I am grateful. Two out of four on the first outing is not bad. My right hon. Friend the Minister will have noticed that 17 more of my amendments are to be debated. If we can keep up that strike rate, perhaps the 12th amendment


onwards may no longer be necessary. In that spirit, and having got two out of four, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'refrain from inviting' and insert 'not invite'.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 107, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert 'and shall'.

Mr. Ross: I am afraid that you, have caught me a bit quick, Sir Geoffrey. I did not think that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was coming to an end quite so quickly, but it has been an interesting debate which will repay careful reading on the morrow before we return to the remainder of the Bill in the afternoon, when some of these matters may be touched on again.
These amendments run in the same vein as the next group of amendments. On the amendment paper, they are headed "Exclusion of delegates (drafting) ". Like the first simple amendments which were discussed, these amendments have a much stronger basis for acceptance than others. All that they do is strengthen the hand of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as they make it plain that he should not invite people who will not say clearly and beyond peradventure that they have given up violence. Ministers should accept the amendments' intention, which is to tighten the position to ensure that the Government will be in a much stronger position whenever they deal with the gunmen, of whatever stripe.
We should never create a position where Sinn Fein-IRA—he Minister confirmed earlier that we are correct to use that designation as they are inextricably linked—could cry foul. Sinn Fein-IRA is good at doing that and at using ambiguous language and vagueness to say, "Oh, we did not know what the Government meant. We thought that they meant what we meant." The Minister should therefore accept these little amendments because they would allow him to say, "Look, it is plain from the drafting of the Bill that I not only should not, but I cannot, accept nominations from a party that has links with people who are deeply involved in violence."
It is essential that everyone should know where he or she stands from the beginning. This is an opportunity for the Government to draw a clear, decisive line in the sand. It may be better to set the line in concrete so that it cannot be so easily forgotten and to stick to it.
The amendments make the position clear beyond peradventure. With the support of the Committee, the Government can easily accept them. The Minister will then find himself in a much stronger position should Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Dublin Government, the Irish Americans or, for heaven's sake, perhaps even the Social Democratic and Labour party say to him, "You need a little flexibility here. We need a little space to manoeuvre." The right hon. Gentleman should deny himself that space for manoeuvre. That would lead to clarification and quicker and clearer decisions whenever he has to confront the difficult decisions that await him.
It would also make the position clear when the right hon. Gentleman talks to other people. He can say to the people of Northern Ireland, "Look, we have made our position rigid on this. We will not accept the people who speak and act for gunmen, murderers and thugs. They cannot and will not be treated as members of a normal political party or as normal politicians."
The problem is that the Governments are asking for the restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. It is not clear whether these matters will be touched on in debates on future amendments, but I hope that they will. My position, and that, I think, of most of my colleagues, is absolutely plain: we do not believe that the so-called ceasefire of August 1994 is good enough.
On that occasion, the IRA, followed by the Protestant, or loyalist, paramilitaries, simply stopped shooting people and blowing them up. Or at least they stopped shooting members of the opposing political dimension. They stopped shooting, bombing and blowing up members of the security forces; they stopped blowing up buildings and town centres, but they did not stop their other activities. Targeting and fund raising continued. Only last week, funds were increased by £1 million, which will buy a great deal and an enormous amount of expertise in elections and election material if, God willing, it is used for that—if those involved are not caught out and the money returned.
6 pm
Thuggery continued too. I am sure that the Secretary of State is well aware that, only a fortnight or three weeks ago, a young man who had had 6 in nails driven through his wrists and ankles was seen on television and in the newspapers. I understand that the nails were driven through his wrists and ankles into a wooden fence and that he was carried into the hospital still fixed to the fence. I see the Ministers nodding, confirming what I had been told. I had hoped that such crucifixions had passed from western society, but it appears that that is not so. I think that Ministers will agree that people who behave in such a way or who have the support of such people should not be admitted into negotiations and should be treated not as a political party but as the thugs and outcasts of society that they are.
Another problem relates to Government representatives. This matter will be touched on later, but perhaps Ministers would like to say something about it now. I have read the papers and discovered that the Government can have five back-ups, but it is not clear who those Government back-ups will be. The Government people are clearly not going to be elected but will be put forward by the Government as their representatives in the negotiations. The Government will therefore have a team of three—presumably, Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office—and five others. Who are these five others going to be? What is intended by having that number? Are these people going to be Members of this House? If not, where will they be drawn from? We shall have to return to such matters.
The Secretary of State is going to have to examine the list of parties. There are a number, but the principal one is Sinn Fein-IRA. The Secretary of State will have to ask himself whether this allegedly political party meets the criteria that have been laid down. We were told earlier that Sinn Fein intended to turn up anyway and cause a scene if it was not allowed in—it has done that before.
When the Secretary of State comes to make that decision, he will have to look at Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness, possibly Mr. Kelly and perhaps others who have as yet not appeared to be members of Sinn Fein but are known only to the security forces as the leading murderers and bombers of the IRA. He will be told that they are the negotiators for Sinn Fein. At that point, some other young man might be being nailed to a fence; some young lady, having had her arms and legs smashed, might be being chucked over a hedge; someone accused of being a drug dealer might be lying with a black bag over his head and two bullet holes through it; or a few people, alleged to have misbehaved in Belfast or elsewhere, might be receiving attention with hammers and iron bars, leaving them the thankful patients of what remains of the national health service. The Secretary of State will have to consider all these possibilities when he makes his decision.
Will the Secretary of State tell Sinn Fein the dreadful things that happened? Will he say, for example, that a gang of masked men smashed their way into a house using a sledgehammer to break down the door, that they held the wife and children captive while they wrecked the house and beat up the man, who is now seriously ill in hospital, and that they did something similar the night before and the night before that? The nice, gentle Mr. Adams will be saying, "We're very sorry, it's nothing to do with us. You can't prove it's anything to do with us."

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am always willing to accept the judgment of the Chair in these matters but, although it might be straining at the limits, I thought what I was saying was relevant to the decision that the Secretary of State will have to make. He will have to decide whether the individuals seeking admission to the talks have any links with the violence perpetrated against citizens of Northern Ireland in the previous 24, 48 or 72 hours.
Is the Secretary of State going to say, "I don't care what you say. My information is that the people involved are members of the Sinn Fein-IRA. These are people with whom you are associated, who are part and parcel of your terrorist, murderous political organisation, and I am not admitting you"? What is the Secretary of State going to do?
The people of Northern Ireland and hon. Members need to understand how the Secretary of State is going to make his decision. I am trying to make it a little easier for him. I am trying to lay down a rigid line behind which he can stand, thus placing the onus not on his judgment or on the reports that he receives from the security forces or those investigating the crimes but on the thugs and murderers. They will have to prove that they were not involved and that the activities about which complaints had been made were carried out by others for other reasons.

Mr. Ancram: I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman. The amendments relate to the requirement placed on the Secretary of State to invite the nominating representatives of each party to submit elected delegates from among whom a team will be formed to participate in the negotiations. If that requirement were not met, the Secretary of State would have to refrain from issuing such invitations.
We all share the hon. Gentleman's horror at the outrages to which he referred. The requirements set out in subsections (2) and (3) relate to the Command Paper and,

indeed, are the basis of the next group of amendments. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore forgive me if I do not deal directly at this stage with the points that he raised; I think that they form a necessary part of our discussions on the next group of amendments.
I have examined the amendments closely. I think that amendment No. 108 is another way of saying what the Government have sought to do in clause 2(3). I do not think that its effect would be any different. Were we to accept his amendment, some further amendments would be required to clarify what the Secretary of State's duty would refer to in those circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 107 does not alter the effect of the clause either. In fact, I think that it improves the drafting of the clause and makes it clearer, and I am pleased to say that the Government are happy to accept it.

Mr. Ross: I am very grateful to have carried the Minister a millimetre with me. He said that before he could accept amendment No. 108 he would have to table further amendments and that further changes would have to be made, but he has not made clear to the Committee exactly what the effect would be. Perhaps he can go further. I would like a further explanation because I do not think that he went far enough.

Mr. Ancram: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not want a technical explanation, but I am happy to give it to him. Clause 2(2) imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to invite the nomination for negotiating teams, as I said earlier. Clause 2(3) qualifies that duty and therefore talks of the Secretary of State refraining from issuing invitations if certain requirements are not met. I presume that the hon. Gentleman's concern is economy of expression since the change is not material. The phrase "refrain from inviting" was designed as a way in which to clarify the fact that subsection (3) detracts from the duty in subsection (2) without having to use words like "subject to" or others of that kind. Our aim was also economy of expression. On that basis, I would prefer to stay with what we have, since the effect is the same. As I said, I bow to the hon. Gentleman's improvement of amendment No. 107, and I hope that he will accept my gratitude for having drawn it to our attention.

Mr. Ross: I am very grateful to the Minister for his further explanation and I am happy to abide by his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 107, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert 'and shall'.—[Mr. William Ross.]

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 19, leave out from the second 'as' to end of line 21 and insert
'that party:—

(a) is attached to a proscribed organisation which is listed in Schedule 2 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, and which

(i) has not declared, and is not presently honouring, a permanent and total cessation of violence; and
(ii) has not surrendered its illegal weaponry; and
(iii) has not dismantled its paramilitary structure, and


(b) has not made an unequivocal declaration of its acceptance of the six principles contained in the Report of the International Commission on Decommissioning, which establish a commitment to:—

(i) exclusively peaceful means; and
(ii) abide by the democratic process.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment No. 27.
Amendment No. 93, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Command Paper 3232' and insert
'the Report of the Mitchell Commission'.
Amendment No. 106, in page 1, line 20, after 'met', insert 'in full'.
Amendment No. 105, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'met' to the end of line 21 and insert
'by that party, or independent member, and any paramilitary or proscribed organisation with which he has reason to believe that party or individual has links or for whom the party purports to speak.'.
Amendment No. 76, in page 1, line 21, after 'party', insert
'or if the party has not

(a) permanently renounced the use of violence for any political or other purpose whatsoever; and
(b) affirmed its total and absolute commitment to the six principles set out in paragraph 20 of the Report of the International Body dated 22nd January 1996.'.
Amendment No. 77, in page 1, line 21, after 'party, ' insert 'and its individual delegates.'.
Amendment No. 85, in page 1, line 21, after 'party', insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall have power to expel any delegate who, after he has taken his seat—

(a) resorts to any act of political violence; or
(b) fails to dissociate himself from any act of political violence; or
(c) withdraws his total and absolute commitment to the six principles set out in paragraph 20 of the Report of the International Body dated 22nd January 1996.'.
New clause 2—Statutory Declaration—
'. Before taking their seats, each member of the forum and of the negotiating teams shall make a statutory declaration that he:
(a) permanently renounces the use of violence for any political or other purpose whatsoever; and
(b) affirms his total and absolute commitment to the six principles set out in paragraph 20 of the Report of the International Body dated 22nd January 1996.'.

Mr. Robinson: The Committee is slightly stunned by the fact that the Government have conceded an amendment, albeit one that will not exactly change the course of history. I wonder whether that has established a pattern and that, as an example of their good faith, the Government will accept amendment No. 2. On the other hand, their acceptance of the previous amendment could well have been just a blip and the bulldozer is about to proceed, leaving behind it the belching smoke to put as much confusion over the scene as possible. That is the issue at stake. The amendment attempts to provide more precise language for the fudge in the Government's Command Paper, and clarity where all that we have at the present time is vagueness.
Under clause 2(3), the amendment would require the Secretary of State to refrain from inviting nominations from nominating representatives of a party or exclude delegates already nominated from entering into negotiations if and for as long as the party had
not declared, and is not presently honouring, a permanent and total cessation of violence",
as well as a number of other qualifications. On the declaration and honouring of a permanent and total cessation of violence, the amendment is very much more precise than the vague reference to a reintroduction of the failed ceasefire of August 1994.
6.15 pm
On Second Reading, there was much comment by hon. Members on both sides of the House on how unsatisfactory the 1994 ceasefire had been. Reference was made to the 10 people who were murdered during that ceasefire, the hundreds of very serious beatings that took place, the gangsterism that continued and the many other breaches of the ceasefire that occurred not only in Northern Ireland but even here in Great Britain. It is therefore very clear that hon. Members would not be looking for a reintroduction of that failed and unsatisfactory ceasefire of August 1994 and would want something very much more permanent and secure. To ensure that there is no doubt in the minds of members of the Provisional IRA, the Bill if amended would make it very clear that they simply could not get away with that again.
The second issue that the amendment addresses relates to the surrender of illegal weaponry. I know that the Secretary of State has in the past been touchy about the use of the word "surrender" because he does not like to give the impression that he is asking the IRA to do anything that would be difficult. I do not have any compunction about using language that would require the surrender of the IRA, never mind its weaponry, because, unlike the Secretary of State, I do not believe that it is possible to talk down this terrorist rebellion.
It is not good enough to go along with the decommissioning in parallel, in stages, as an incremental surrender of weapons. The people of Northern Ireland are as much threatened by 95 per cent. of the Provisional IRA's weapons—or, for that matter, by the weapons of loyalist paramilitary organizations—as they would be by 100 per cent. of its weaponry. That is why I believe that it is a necessary condition that all weaponry should be surrendered. Apart from removing the weapons of death from our society, such a surrender of weapons would in itself be a very clear sign—perhaps the clearest—that the paramilitary organisations intended to embrace the democratic process and give up their terrorism.
Paragraph (a)(iii) of the amendment, however, recognises that it is simply not enough to hand over weapons, because organisations could of course rearm. There therefore has to be the dismantling of the terrorist machinery and structure.
As well as those confidence-building issues for the Northern Ireland community, the amendment includes a requirement for an unequivocal declaration of each party's acceptance of the six principles contained in the report of the international commission on decommissioning. Those principles, which have been spelled out on many


occasions in the House of Commons, have been rolled up into the requirement to endorse "exclusively peaceful means" and to
abide by the democratic process".
No one should be in a democratic negotiating process if he cannot sign up to such simple conditions. The House of Commons is not laying down those conditions. They were not concocted by the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister, the Minister, or any hon. Member. They are the fruit of an international commission that considered the matters and what would be the basic requirements, the lowest level of entry, into a negotiating process for any person. The commission of international representatives was headed by an American. That must be an attraction for the Government because the Americans can hardly complain if the Government put down conditions that they have set in the first place. Those who want to take part in the negotiations are required to accept basic democratic principles.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the principles contained in the amendment. I believe that the requirements are unnecessarily vague in the Command Paper, on which the Secretary of State relies. The use of terminology such as
would need to make clear
and "the need to address", which is even more vague, is quite unsatisfactory. During the negotiating process, delegates will be asked to consider as an agenda item matters such as the six Mitchell principles and decommissioning. They will have brought before them the Command Paper, which is referred to in the Bill, and they will spend days, weeks or even months trying to determine what "to address" the proposals on decommissioning means at that stage.
The truth is that the words will mean whatever the Secretary of State wants them to mean at that moment. Northern Ireland representatives are worried that they would go into a process that was open to the definition of the Secretary of State at some moment in future. I believe that, as he has not encouraged us much by being more precise at the Dispatch Box about what the phrase "to address" the issue of decommissioning means, the House of Commons will want to make the wording of the legislation precise by accepting the amendment. Nobody can then be in any doubt about what has to be done for entry into the negotiating process.
Simply to say that parties would need "to address" the issue leaves it open for the parties to refer to it and to nod in its direction. Even on a daily basis, they might want to "address" issues. However, using that terminology, there is no requirement to come to any decision on the matter, still less to take any action arising from any decision on the matter. Such imprecision will not be acceptable to parties in Northern Ireland and if it persists, it will undoubtedly lead to major problems as the process continues. For all those reasons, there is cause for hon. Members to support the amendment. I trust that the Committee and the Government will be able to do so.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I want to speak briefly to my amendment No. 93, which is being considered with amendment No. 2. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) may be surprised to hear that I agree with at least some of what he has said. It is very important for any party at the negotiating table to

subscribe to the six principles laid out in the Mitchell commission's report. That is precisely what the amendment states.
I therefore do not see why there is any need to make a specific reference to Command Paper 3232, as the Bill does more than once. It would help to achieve broader acceptance of the criteria for admission to the negotiations if they were based on the report of an international commission rather than simply on a White Paper issued by the British Government. Indeed, it is arguable that the six principles, as set out in the Mitchell commission's report, are far more comprehensive than paragraph 9, for example, of the White Paper.
It is worth reminding hon. Members of the six principles. The main points are that the parties ought to be committed to
democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues;
To the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations;
To agree that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission;
To renounce for themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations;
To agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they may disagree; and,
To urge that 'punishment' killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions.
There is broad agreement in the House—and, I hope, among the people of Northern Ireland—that those six principles are a fair list of criteria for admission to the talks, without the British Government having to interpret them or add to them in any way. It would therefore be helpful to try to get all parties to the negotiating table as quickly as possible. I hope that, in the immediate aftermath of the elections on 30 May, we manage to get all the parties that are successful in satisfying the electoral criteria to satisfy the Mitchell criteria, so that they can get to the negotiating table and begin the important and, we hope, meaningful negotiations on 10 June.
It would be enough to get all parties publicly to subscribe to the six principles of the Mitchell commission, so it is unnecessary to make any specific reference to Command Paper 3232, as the Bill does at present. I therefore ask the Government to consider amendment No. 93.

Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I want to comment briefly on amendment No. 93, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). Before doing that, I want to put the record straight on a comment made on a point of order just before we began consideration of the Bill, as this is the first chance I have had to do so. I make it clear that I properly declared my interests in the year just ended, and that I will continue to do so. I thank the House for allowing me to put the record straight on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West said that the spirit of amendment No. 93 was to move the negotiations on as speedily as possible—an aim shared. I am sure, by hon. Members of all parties. However, we are slightly concerned about the wording of the amendment, because, in a sense, the ground rules document puts the


Mitchell report first on the agenda for talk. The way in which the amendment is worded does two things. First, it undermines some of the value of the ground rules document; secondly, it may in a sense do what my hon. Friend is trying not to do, which is to impose another precondition before talks start. I make that point in a friendly spirit, in the hope of facilitating debate this afternoon.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I endorse amendment No. 2, which was moved so eloquently by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). During earlier discussions on amendment No. 136, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthome (Mr. Wilshire), it was accepted by the Committee in general that it was necessary to have the flexibility of the putative ground rules set out in the Command Paper rather than having them rendered more inflexible by being put in their entirety into legislation.
Within the Command Paper on the ground rules there is a central unequivocal core—a number of principles to which everyone must subscribe before being able to hope to participate in the negotiations. Those are more than just ground rules; they are essential democratic requirements, which throw into broad relief the principles of democracy, and the principles, if such they can be called, of those who wish to achieve political ends by means of violence and terrorism.
It is my view—I hope that the view is shared by the House—that those essential principles have been abstracted and put into words, in the shape of amendment No. 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). From the Command Paper, the hon. Gentleman has abstracted what is absolutely necessary, what is not negotiable and what is a positive requirement for everyone who will pay real, substantial and unequivocal tribute to democratic principles, rather than creating an area of fudge and equivocation through which they may later escape.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the first thing necessary after the elections will be a declaration by the leaders of all the parties that they will abide by those principles? Before people are called to the table to negotiate, they must make an affirmation that that is their basis. If they are called to the table and start negotiating on such conditions, we shall be in the middle of a negotiation that can never be fruitful.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it seems to me absolutely necessary and essential that all those who claim to be democrats and who wish to participate in what is said to be a democratic resolution, or a means of resolving our present problems democratically, should abide by those principles.
It is important that those principles, which are the very essence of any basis for negotiations, should not simply be left as one item among a set of items in the Command Paper, but must be set out in clear and unequivocal terms within the body of the Bill, so that there can be no ifs or buts about what people are required to do.
There is an enormous amount of good sense in requiring, before 10 June and after the elections, those persons who have been designated by the Secretary of

State as the nominators of delegates for each party participating in the talks to make a clear, unqualified statement, without reservations, on behalf of themselves and of such delegates as they are responsible for appointing, that they accept the principles in clause 2 as it would be amended.
In the absence of such a declaration, the confidence that is said to be such an essential requirement for everyone who intends to participate in the negotiations will not be created. People will go into the negotiations with reservations.
On the basis that the past is the only guide we have to future performance, many people in Northern Ireland believe that, unless certain principles are spelled out in a way that allows no fudge or equivocation, concessions will be made to the men of violence, to get them to the table. At some point, a price is too high to pay for bringing such people within the fold of democratic procedures.
What concerns me is not only the opposition to an amendment of the kind suggested, but, in the general principle of the legislation, the absence of any suggestion about what democrats will do if an agreement is reached without the parties of violence being involved. Is there to be any sanction to prevent those people from saying, "It is all very well you democrats getting together and arriving at an agreement—but we shall continue as heretofore"?
It seems to me that the parties will be creating a situation in which their democratic agreement is the only weapon in the Government's armoury against the possibility of the men of terror simply continuing as before. I appreciate that this may not be the time when the Government can say, "If the democrats arrive at an agreement, and if the men of violence ignore it and, despite being pilloried at the bar of world opinion—for which they have shown scant regard in the past—they continue, we shall do X, Y and Z."
But at least there should be some suggestion that, if those people do not participate, and if there is an agreement that is endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum and approved by the House, yet terror continues, there will be no question of either the Government of the Republic or the United Kingdom Government not adopting certain measures—at this stage, I do not require them to be specified—to ensure that democratic principles and arrangements democratically arrived at will be guaranteed by those two Governments, by whatever means may then be necessary.

Mr. Wilshire: Four of the amendments in the group—amendments Nos. 76, 77 and 85 and new clause 2—stand in my name. I say at the outset that I shall not be easily talked out of pressing at least some of the points in them, so I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will bear that sentiment in mind and allow me at this stage simply to explain what concerns me; then, having had the chance to listen to what he has to say, with the leave of the House I will come back to one or two matters, if necessary.
Amendment No. 76 seeks to add to the requirement that I understand my right hon. and learned Friend will advocate in a Government amendment—the requirement that participation in the negotiations be dependent on agreement with the contents of paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Command Paper. Paragraph 8 requires people to


establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods"—
that is a step in the right direction—and paragraph 9 requires
the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire".
My amendment seeks to return to the issue of a permanent renunciation of all violence, rather than a mere restoration of the ceasefire. It would also require participants to sign up to Mitchell totally and absolutely. The words "total" and "absolute" are taken from the Government document; they are not words that I have invented.
If I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's proposed amendment correctly, I welcome it, but he will not be surprised to hear that I do not believe that it goes far enough. I will not rehearse the reasons for that, which I have given before, but my right hon. Friend the Minister's amendment requires parties to "establish a commitment". Parties could say, "Yes, we would agree to that in an ideal world, but it is not ideal, so we can't act on our commitment just yet." They could say, "Yes, we are committed to it, but as long as the British Government are so intransigent"—to quote Sinn Fein-IRA—"there is nothing we can do about it." Those are both interpretations of establishing a commitment.
In an earlier debate—I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was here—my right hon. Friend the Minister said that Sinn Fein-IRA was a master of interpretation and finding loopholes. To avoid all doubt, in addition to Government amendment No. 27, the phrase "establish a commitment" should be changed to "sign up to the Mitchell six principles and permanently renounce violence". That is what amendment No. 76 seeks to do.
Amendment No. 77 is altogether simpler. My right hon. and learned Friend is a master of legal detail. As a mere layman, I worry that a reference only to parties having to do something offers a loophole through which individual delegates might be able to duck. The amendment, in non-legalistic language, seeks to ensure that not only parties but individual delegates must do what my right hon. and learned Friend wants. If my worry is unnecessary, I should be grateful if he would explain in detail how the reference to parties covers individuals.
Amendment No. 85 raises two points. First, there may be another legal loophole. My right hon. and learned Friend is taking powers to refuse to admit people to talks and to exclude people from taking their seats if, after they have been nominated, they have not done certain things; but nowhere in the Bill does he take powers to expel people if, after they have taken their seats, circumstances change. We need to be reassured that not admitting and excluding also means expelling. If there is any doubt about that. I hope that the Bill will be amended so that the Secretary of State can expel people who do things after they join the negotiations.
Secondly, the amendment gives the grounds on which the Secretary of State should have the power to expel people. They will come as no surprise, and I do not need to labour them. If people in the negotiations resort to violence, out they go. If violence is resumed during the negotiations and people in the negotiating teams refuse to dissociate themselves from it, out they go. If people who have signed up to the Mitchell six principles decide to forget some of them, out they go. That is what should happen, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will tell us that he will have the power to expel people.
New clause 2 takes us back to what my right hon. Friend the Minister said in an earlier debate about people joining the negotiations having to sign up to the Mitchell six before they started. After a while, we got it clear that they would have to sign up to them. That raises the question how delegates to the talks can demonstrate that they have signed up to the Mitchell six. New clause 2 offers one way. I readily accept that there could be dozens of better ways, but this is on the table for consideration.

Mr. Ancram: I do not want a misunderstanding to arise. When I spoke on the earlier amendment, I hoped that I had made it clear that participants would have to sign up for the Mitchell principles, and that the participants would be the parties and the Governments.

Mr. Wilshire: I hope that the term "parties" includes the individuals in parties who make up the negotiating teams. That is one of the points on which I sought clarification earlier. If I am wrong, no doubt my right hon. Friend will say that it does not mean that individuals have to sign up. If they do not, we have a debate on our hands, because it is essential that they should. Whether it is parties or individuals, new clause 2 seeks to give effect to the assurance that my right hon. Friend gave us earlier.
I propose a statutory declaration. That is not novel; I would love to take the credit, but people in Northern Ireland have to sign up for such things when they are elected as councillors. As Sinn Fein-IRA is happy to sign up after council elections, I assume that even it will not be able to find a way of not signing up on this occasion. The best way to handle agreement to Mitchell is to use the same method as is used for council elections.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the weakness of the present legislation is that individuals must take the matter to court. The Government should take such matters to court. Given the situation in Northern Ireland, it is not fair that individuals have to put themselves in the way of a death squad to clarify the matter through court proceedings. I am sure that he agrees that the onus should be on the Secretary of State and the Government to bring people to book if they break the principles.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Every time I get involved in Northern Ireland debates, I learn something new. I appreciate that I probably should have understood that point before I started to speak. He is absolutely right. If this provision is to be meaningful, there has to be action. Although it is outside the scope of this debate, now that I understand what happens in council elections, he can count on my support on another occasion for trying to have it put right. For the moment, I will explain what my four amendments seek to do.
I do not want to get into the justifications, because I have explained my approach often enough. I want to listen to my right hon. Friend's reply. I hope that he will take all my points on board; if not, with the leave of the House, I should like to come back on some of them.

Mr. William Ross: The two amendments in my name are simple and straightforward. Although they could have


appeared as one, I have chosen to present them as two so that one or other, or both, can be inserted in the Bill. They attempt to pin down people with links with violent organisations, clarify the situation and make things easier for the Secretary of State.
Before I deal with that, I want to comment on what hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said about councillors signing up. First, councillors do not sign up in a ceremonial way, but privately. They could later deny that they had signed up. Secondly, when Sinn Fein councillors are elected, it means that they have a considerable number of supporters in the area for which they are elected. In reality, only a person from the same area could challenge them. In that light, it is not surprising that folk are unwilling to put their lives on the line—and that is what they would have to do. That may not be clearly enough understood in the House or elsewhere. IRA-Sinn Fein said at the beginning that it could sign up to that without any problem. If it can do so, it is not worded strongly enough. It does not put IRA-Sinn Fein on the spot and if it does not do so, it is not worth having.
If we are going to have declarations, the Secretary of State must understand that they must have teeth and they must bite. They must be enforceable and there must be some cost if they are not enforced. I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the concern that has been articulated on the issue in one way or another in the House and on which no action has as yet been taken.
The Secretary of State will see from my amendments that not only do I intend to pin the individuals and parties down, but that Members on the Ulster Unionist Benches want him to carry out the spirit of the legislation, which is important in the perception of the people of Northern Ireland. He has to fulfil their perceptions in relation to this matter. If he is to exclude people whom he has reason to believe are engaged in murderous activities, the Bill must enable him to do so without hesitation. He must be standing on firm ground and his position must be strong.
For that reason, we tabled amendment No. 105. Our amendment No. 106 refers only to meeting the requirements "in full". Amendment No. 105 goes further and states that not only the party but the independent members must be covered. They have not been mentioned in this context. The amendment refers to
any paramilitary or proscribed organisation with which he"—
the Secretary of State—
has reason to believe that party or individual has links or for whom the party purports to speak.
If I were writing the amendment today, after the exchanges that have taken place, I would have referred not only to independent members, but to individuals put forward as candidates by their parties. It is important that those individuals sign and agree that they are bound by the strictures of the legislation, and that is not the case.
By "in full", I mean that we cannot accept ambiguous language. We cannot accept the sort of language that has been used in the past—the degree of vagueness that allows that nice bearded fellow to try to convince the people of Northern Ireland, without success I may say, how peacefully intentioned he is. I must tell the Secretary of State that we are trying to ensure that on this occasion those who are involved in violence—those who speak for violence and may not only be the spokesmen for violence,

but commit it off their own bat and are directed by it—and who say what has to be said for the purposes of those violent organisations are pinned down in spirit, so that the people of Northern Ireland know that the Government really mean it and that the individuals involved are breaking with their violent pasts. We mean, therefore, that the whole concept and spirit of non-violence and democracy should be involved and should be accepted by all concerned.
In amendment No. 105, 1 am also trying to draw attention to the fact that those parties, or alleged parties as I prefer to describe them, will attempt to cover the links between themselves—as individuals and as parties—and the violent organisations. The earlier exchanges made it perfectly plain to anyone who cares to read the debate that, so far as the Government are concerned, Sinn Fein-IRA is the same body. We are simply looking at two faces of the same body of persons. We are all aware also that that applies not only to Sinn Fein-IRA, but to the other paramilitary organisations and the parties that speak for them.
In this legislation, the Government are creating a structure that will draw those people into negotiations. To a large extent, the Government also believe that it will draw them from the ways of violence, thuggery and fascism that they have followed until now into the ways of peace and democracy. That is a pious hope without any solid foundation and it does not impress people. Folk see through that humbug. For heaven's sake, we have lived with it for 25 years. The individuals are known in every street, district, town and village in which they live. We are not dealing with strangers, or with an unknown quantity, but with the thugs we know. We are dealing with the murderers, gunmen and bombers we know. We are dealing with people who have records and have in many cases served prison sentences for their evil deeds. We know that they have neither deserted them nor in any way turned from their violent past or from the concept of violence succeeding. Far too often, the Government have given them hope that their violence will succeed by making concessions, or what those individuals perceive to be concessions.
I believe that I am being perfectly correct—it is only sensible—to draw the attention of the House to the independent candidates in the amendment. My understanding is that one of those independent candidates is not just some little flower that has sprouted from the ground like a daisy in a field, but is an ex-Sinn Fein chairman of a council in Northern Ireland. If that is so, this is a man who must be pinned down and asked to sign up to the principles of democracy and non-violence. Amendment No. 105 would pin that individual down. We would be telling him that he had to sign up. If an independent member who is standing for election is to be pinned down and will have to sign up, why should individual members whose names are on the list for the parties not have to sign up also? That is not a small point. It is important and the Government must take it on board. If the words in the amendment do not fit the purpose, let them come back on Report with words that meet my point—a point that has been made by others.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the person to whom he just referred is the man who said that he did not apply to be on the list, but was put on it and is just going to run with it?

Mr. Ross: The individual who uttered those words has not been identified to me, but I am prepared to take my hon. Friend's word for that, if he is accusing that person of not wanting to run. Perhaps he was complaining for the sake of doing so. If the Government are so willing to accept a name, heaven help us. I notice that one amendment would have the effect of adding the Communist party of Ireland to the list. It was a bit slow off the mark, which is not normal for that party. It is a bit rich when the Secretary of State is promoting the Communist party of Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument made all the stronger when the House recognises that the independent about whom he is speaking is the same independent who declared, as chairman of the council, that the council workers were legitimate targets to be killed by the IRA?

Mr. Ross: Indeed, the hon. Gentleman draws to my mind an incident that I had forgotten. He is correct in his assertion. That is what that individual said. I wonder why, when the IRA is so fond of such people, he and that organisation parted company? Perhaps he was too moderate for it. I am not sure, but considering the area from which he came he was probably considered to be a moderate.
In the light of what has been said, I hope that the Secretary of State will meet the point, which has been made with great force. I was also glad to hear what the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said. He understands quite clearly the need to build confidence by removing the weaponry, which is a very important point that must be dealt with, if not at the top of the list, very early on in the negotiations. It would perhaps be much easier to address that issue if the people who enter negotiations are prepared to say beforehand that they will desert violence and that their parties will become democratic and real political parties that are not merely the face of thuggery and murder.
7 pm
The Government have also, of course, tabled an amendment, which is the final item that I intend to mention in my remarks—other hon. Members can speak for themselves. The Government's amendment does not go far enough. In paragraph 8 of the Command Paper, which they wish to insert into the Bill, they talk about including parties that
abide by the democratic process.
That does not go far enough because there is no mention of those parties abiding by democratic decisions—which has been assiduously avoided in all the documents, from start to finish. We talk about a democratic process, but no one ever says, "We're going to abide by democratic decisions", as we do in the House.
At the end of paragraph 9 of the Command Paper, we come to the question of
the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994.
Hon. Members have already said today that that is simply not sufficient. It was not enough before, and it is even less now. We really need to have something that goes far beyond the IRA saying, "We've stopped murdering folk, but we're going to go on with all the other thuggery."
It is not good enough for the Government to accept the IRA's demand that there will be no forensic examination of any surrendered weapons, because one can foresee a

situation in which the IRA will not remember whether a weapon or group of weapons has been used in an attack, holds on to those weapons and surrenders others, says, "We have given up all our weapons", and that is the end of the matter. There must be forensic examination and the weapons must be identified. If the weapons that have been used do not appear, we will know whether the IRA is telling lies.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I shall make clear the Opposition's attitude to these amendments, which are grouped under the title of "Grounds for Excluding Delegates". In listening to hon. Members who have spoken—such as the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—they are obviously quite right in wanting to exclude from participation in peace talks people who do not subscribe to democratic values. There is no question about that.
When comparing those hon. Members' proposals with those of the Government, however, I must ask myself which proposals are more likely to bring progress in the peace talks. I have come to the conclusion that, by and large, the Government have it right in setting the framework for peace talks. If one were to go further than the Government have gone, one would bring in so many restrictions and preconditions that progress would not be possible. As the Secretary of State said earlier, we must make our judgments in the context of the mood that would be set in the framework and in the talks.
The Government have appropriately made it quite clear, as have we, that we must embrace confidence-building issues at the start of the talks. Those issues come directly from the international body and the Mitchell report, which requires that the people who take part in the talks unambiguously accept its six principles. Let us make no mistake about it: the six principles will be extremely difficult for Sinn Fein to accept. The principles include the principle of consent, which is something that Sinn Fein was unable to accept in the peace and reconciliation talks in Dublin, and it will not be an easy test for Sinn Fein.
The ceasefire will have to be re-established if Sinn Fein is to get to the talks. If the ceasefire is not re-established, the Secretary of State will, in the words of the Bill, "refrain from inviting" Sinn Fein to the talks. That test must be passed. Another requirement is that, on the first day of the talks, the Mitchell principles on decommissioning are embraced. We believe that that is an adequate test in relation to the talks.
The obvious question for the participants in the forum is what will be its rules of procedure, which will be an issue for it to decide. The forum may or may not decide that, in its rules of procedure, it requires an oath of allegiance from the delegates. That will be for the forum to decide. I do not suggest that that is what should occur, but it is obvious from what has been said in today's debate that members of the forum will take that decision. Whether such an oath is a good idea will be for that body to decide.

Mr. Robert McCartney: When the hon. Gentleman says that the matter is for the forum to decide, does he means that it is a matter for the negotiators to decide?

Mr. Worthington: I meant exactly what I said. The legislation says that the rules of procedure will be for the


forum to decide, and that the forum must propose rules of procedure that will then have to be approved by the Secretary of State. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be nit-picking about this, delegates to the forum can be dealt with in that manner. I think that the Government basically have it right in setting the conditions for the talks.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: In view of what my hon. Friend is saying about making the rules, does not that make even more important the point that any rules passed by the negotiators or the forum—or whoever it might be—should have the support of majorities representing both communities and not only 75 per cent. of those participating?

Mr. Worthington: My hon. Friend must not tempt me to go down a route that we will deal with in a later schedule. We will tackle that issue then.
We must deal with whether the Government have put in sufficiently firm tests for entry to the talks. We believe that the Secretary of State has done that. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), in her brief reply to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), said that his amendment appeared to say that the parties had to sign up to the Mitchell principles before they got to the talks, whereas the Command Paper says that that is really the first item on the agenda of the all-party talks. That seems to be exactly the right point at which there should be testing of the parties' resolve and attitude, rather than before that. The Mitchell principles are expressed in simple language, but I am sure that the debate on them will not be dealt with in half an hour or so. All parties will wish to test what is meant by the Mitchell principles. I see the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) laughing at that point. I am sure that if he were at those talks he would certainly wish to test Sinn Fein on what principle 6 meant to it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has assured us that the leaders of the parties will have to make an affirmation and declaration and not indulge in long discussions, qualifications, definitions and parsing of sentences. I shall make that declaration when my party is returned. I shall not be at any table to listen to the shenanigans of would-be murderers who cannot even reject the murder that has been carried out on both sides of the community. I am speaking of loyalist paramilitaries as well as Sinn Fein on this occasion. They should make that declaration. Until that declaration is made, we do not know what will happen in the peace talks.

Mr. Worthington: The point that I was making was that, if a representative of Sinn Fein was at the negotiations and said that Sinn Fein fully accepted Mitchell principles 5 and 6, it would be wholly out of character for the hon. Gentleman to say, "We accept your word on that. We can move on to the next business." I think that that is unlikely to occur. The hon. Gentleman would want to test that.
We hope that the Government will resist the amendments because we believe that they would not facilitate the early movement to all-party talks or help to set the right atmosphere. I believe that the right safeguards are in the Bill and that to go beyond would not be helpful to the conduct of the talks.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I rise to try to clarify some of the suggestions that have just been made by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman as I did not have an opportunity to intervene. Are right hon. and hon. Members really aware of what we are legislating for at this stage? It is suggested that people could be elected to a forum and that thereafter that forum could place a bar on its membership. I believe that that will leave us open to continuous legal wrangling. Even on the question of the negotiating bodies, we have watched what has happened in the courts of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein councillors and others have gone to the courts to obtain a legal interpretation and judgment. The House should legislate clearly rather than leave matters for speculative discussions and innumerable law cases thereafter.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. As he knows, I have mixed views about the Bill and its purpose. I wonder whether at any stage we will get Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Martin McGuinness and their ilk to accept the principles of Mitchell and, therefore, whether my right hon. and learned Friend will be prepared to consider on-going negotiations with Sinn Fein and the IRA, as he has carried on negotiations with them for many months. If it is clear that Mr. Adams, Mr. McGuinness and other leading representatives of Sinn Fein who will be elected to take part in the discussions and the examination which the forum will undertake, cannot and will not meet the Mitchell principles, will negotiations take place? Or will my right hon. and learned Friend find a way around that so that he can continue to negotiate with the IRA and Sinn Fein? The commitment of my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to finding a permanent peace and the reintroduction of the IRA ceasefire is not in doubt. The doubt is how far they will go in undermining the principles of the Union, which I support, to find the platform on which negotiations can take place.
In putting that question to my right hon. and learned Friend, am I right in thinking that there will be a point beyond which he will not go? If certain leading representatives who may be part of the forum cannot meet the Mitchell principles or the criteria laid down in clause 2—the grounds for excluding delegates that we are currently discussing—will my right hon. and learned Friend have the courage and the principle to refuse to negotiate with Mr. McGuinness, Mr. Adams and others with whom in the past he has been in positive on-going negotiations? If he cannot give me a proper answer to that question and say that if they cannot meet the criteria he will not negotiate with them, what are we talking about in this debate tonight?

Mr. Robert McCartney: Perhaps the Secretary of State would clarify the basic principles relating to the issue now before the House. Will acceptance of the Mitchell principles and of the necessity to address the issue of decommissioning be a necessary preliminary to allowing a party into the discussions and not a condition for staying in the discussions? I suspect that, instead of taking a firm and principled stand and saying to those gentlemen who espouse violence as a means of obtaining political ends, "You cannot participate and discuss with democrats unless you accept the principles of democracy", the Government


will allow them in on the first day. Whether it is five minutes, 10 minutes or a day into the discussions, we will be in discussions. The other participants may be left to do the dirty job of saying, "Out you go or out we go". The Government should make the position unequivocally and abundantly clear and say, "You are not to be here at all unless you give the democratic affirmations that are required." Will the Government answer that question?

Mr. John Wilkinson: Please forgive me for coming in late and not having listened to the debate that preceded my intervention. It is beholden on Her Majesty's Government unequivocally to clarify their position with regard to the eligibility of delegates to take part in the negotiations. It is all very well to finesse the issues and to seek to obfuscate them. However, I believe that no reasonable democrat could quibble with amendment No. 2—which is in the name of the leader of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), and in the name of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
It ought to be utterly fundamental that those who are associated with the use of violence for political ends or those who maintain the capability of continuing to pursue violent means in the course of seeking their political objectives are excluded. If we cede this point, the whole process will become fatally flawed because it will give an equivalence of status to those who use horrendous and unprincipled means of wreaking mass murder with those who have eschewed for principled and noble political motives those methods that we so utterly deplore. There has to be an element of trust in the position adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that they will not obfuscate the issues and that they will explain why they exclude amendment No. 2, if they so do.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: This has been a full debate, and rightly so. The amendments cover important matters and they are perceived as going to some important facets of the negotiations. It may help if I put the debate into the context of the Government's policy as it has been explained hitherto. The Government's policy has been to seek to secure all-party negotiations, by which it is meant negotiations including all those parties with a democratic mandate, with the purpose of coming through to a comprehensive settlement based on consent, if that proves to be possible.
It has always been made clear that those parties which shall be entitled to take part as having a democratic mandate shall be those which have declared themselves to be committed to democratic principles and to peaceful methods. For obvious reasons, there can be no place in a democracy for people or parties who are prepared—if they are negotiating as parties—to threaten, or by implication threaten, that they will use violence if they do not get what they want by democratic and peaceful purposes around the table. Putting it another way, people in a democracy cannot be expected to sit down and negotiate with other parties that are not prepared to disavow their willingness to rely on violence in the sense that I have just described it.
That has always been a qualification of the Government's policy of bringing in, if possible, all the parties with a democratic mandate. That has been fleshed out in what is now the Command Paper agreed between

the two Governments as offering their best judgment as to what may receive most acceptance in a way with which we are now familiar. Again, it may be worth spelling it out. So far as Sinn Fein is concerned, it is specifically stipulated in the document—in the ninth paragraph—that it shall not be entitled, first of all, to continue with any ministerial contact and, more particularly in the context of what we are discussing, it shall not be entitled to enter into the negotiations unless there has been a restoration by the IRA of the ceasefire of August 1994.
The point has eloquently been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) that that would not be enough. I agree with that, because we know that the ceasefire was broken and that it did not prove to be a permanent or a true cessation of violence. This is where the requirements that are stipulated in the Command Paper become vividly important as to what shall happen when the negotiations begin, because perhaps it is rather more important or significant than the restoration of the ceasefire.
At the beginning of the negotiations, each and every participant—by which it is meant, in the scheme of things, each and every participating party—shall make it clear that they are totally and absolutely committed to the Mitchell principles, which have come to be called the Mitchell six, of non-violence and of democracy. In the interests of time, I am quoting from memory but, I think, accurately. They have already been referred to by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington).
Without taking up the time of the Committee by looking up the principles and reading them extensively, they include a commitment of the parties to abide by the outcome of democratic discussions and, if they dislike the outcome, to commit themselves exclusively to democratic and peaceful ways of changing them. Just as important—and perhaps more immediately important in the context of what has been occupying us for the last hour or so—they include a commitment to the total and verifiable disarmament of the weapons held by paramilitary organisations.
In reality, in relation to Sinn Fein there is the requirement that the ceasefire be restored and that it, together with all other participants—including the two Governments—shall commit itself to those principles. However, it does not end there because the scheme as set out in the Command Paper requires that at the same time—that is, at the beginning of the negotiations—they shall address the proposals made by Mitchell for the decommissioning of weapons by paramilitary organisations. Those proposals comprise, embrace and include a proposal that decommissioning shall take place—this is not the precise language, which can be found in paragraph 34—in parallel with the progress of negotiations. The six detailed proposals appear much later in the report.
Much concern has been expressed about the verb "to address". In my opinion, there is more than one way in which a serious commitment, a serious expression of good faith, of getting into the guts of the proposals can be achieved. Therefore, it seemed a sensible way in which that could be associated with the first, total and absolute requirement to sign up to those clearly expressed principles of non-violence and of democracy.

Mr. Wilshire: I accept that there is more than one way of addressing something, but the end product is


what concerns me and, I believe, a number of other people. However this matte ill my right hon. and learned Friend confirm in clear terms that no party and no individual will be allowed to take part in the negotiations until they have publicly signed up—by whatever route they choose to sign up—to every one of the Mitchell six principles?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned in relation to every party participating in the negotiations. That is the language of the scheme to which the two Governments are committed, and to which I have committed our own Government on Second Reading and more than once since. That is certainly the case.

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Before my hon. Friend rises again, perhaps he will permit me to say that it is central to this scheme that these are elections of parties and that the negotiations shall be participated in by parties, albeit parties which have provided lists of names of people who shall be returned as delegates to the forum from whom there shall be drawn down, as it were, the negotiating teams to take part in the negotiations.
I want to make it perfectly clear—as did my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—that, by reason of the fact that the scheme requires parties to take part, it is of parties that we ask and require, indeed demand, that they make clear a total and absolute commitment to the Mitchell principles. If they are not prepared to do that, they are not entitled to proceed.

Mr. Trimble: The Secretary of State may have been about to turn his mind to the following point. It is equally important that we have clarification about what happens afterwards. Assuming that commitments are given, those commitments have to be honoured, and they have to be honoured by parties, which demonstrate their honouring of them by their collective and individual actions. It is equally important that we get some clarity about what happens in the event of a prominent member of the party—perhaps its leader or some leading figure—proceeding to act in a way which conflicts or to make statements which conflict with the Mitchell principles. We need to be clear about how paragraph 17 of the ground rules will operate so as to exclude not only the individual, but possibly the party, from further participation.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. For greater clarity, I remind the Committee of paragraph 17:
If, during the negotiations, any party demonstrably dishonoured its commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body by, for example, resorting to force or threatening the use of force to influence the course or the outcome of the negotiations, or failing to oppose the efforts of others to do so, it would no longer be entitled to participate in the negotiations.
I shall discuss the illustration that the hon. Gentleman specified in a moment, but first I ask how paragraph 17 would be applied?
The circumstances of the moment would have to be taken account of in the totality. It is very difficult to say, here and now, what the consequence would be in every set of circumstances, but it would plainly be for those participating in the negotiations to form a collective view as to whether a party had, for example, failed to oppose the efforts of others to resort to force or to threaten the use of force.

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall just complete this thought. A party acts through its individuals. I am being asked by the hon. Gentleman to consider the example of a leader or a prominent person, as I was also asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). If a party, through its leader, has failed to oppose—to use the language of paragraph 17—the efforts of those who resort to force or threaten the use of force, it is very much a matter for consideration whether the party has not brought itself within the ambit of paragraph 17.

Mr. Roy Beggs: All parties have mavericks. Why should the party leader be forced to accept responsibility for disciplining someone who has stepped out of line and has simply become involved but is not committed? Why does the Secretary of State not accept responsibility for removing from proceedings the person who has dishonoured the commitment and dishonoured their party?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The negotiations will not be my exclusive property. It will not be open to me to exclude someone once the negotiations have begun. It will be open to the participants, who will be the masters in their own procedure, and it will be for them to decide whether that should be the case. I can make arrangements and I can make dispositions so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, but I cannot determine that for others.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I will give way in a moment.
That leads us into the territory of amendments Nos. 105 and 106, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), and new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, which propose that these requirements shall be required of individual members of teams.

Mr. William Ross: And the independents.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The independents are there because for the purposes of the Bill they are parties; that is made clear in the drafting of the legislation. The hon. Gentleman makes a face, but we went into this on Second Reading and they are parties for the purpose of the Bill.
I understand the argument that commitments should be required of individuals, but I repeat the point that I made at the outset: the scheme of the Bill is about parties. Parties put themselves up for election, parties are elected and parties participate. I believe that it would not be practicable to require a commitment to the Mitchell principles from individual party delegates as opposed to the parties


collectively, and I believe that the requirements that I indicated at the outset of my remarks as being central to the Government's policy are sufficiently fulfilled if that which is required vis-à-vis the Mitchell six is required of the parties.
I have argued, and I believe that it is relevant at this juncture, that if a party, through its leader, expresses, fails to oppose or in other ways perhaps more positively demonstrates dishonouring of its commitment to the principles of democracy—if an individual does that—it is very hard indeed to see how a party can deny that it is the party that is doing it.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Perhaps the Secretary of State will answer this question, which returns to the generalities of principle rather than the particularities with which he has been dealing.
Let us suppose that Sinn Fein-IRA re-institute their ceasefire a week before 30 May, participate in the elections, give an undertaking on the first day of the talks on 10 June and address—whatever that may mean—the Mitchell principles. First, is it possible that the Government would accept such a restoration of the ceasefire as late as a week before 30 May, which would not in itself give any ground for confidence or provide any validation of the authenticity of that ceasefire? Secondly, in those circumstances, would the Government be prepared to accept the undertaking? Thirdly, by addressing the Mitchell principles on decommissioning, is it possible that Sinn Fein-IRA could continue on that basis to be involved in negotiations for months without handing over a single rusty revolver?

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the Secretary of State continues, may I point out that interventions, by their nature, should be short? I shall not be so generous another time.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) invited me to be general rather than particular and then described a very particular scenario. Nevertheless, I will try to deal with it. I acknowledge that some people will say, "You are dodging the issue if you do not give a precise answer now to a hypothetical scenario", but I must face that. Our stand is based on the requirement for an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. That is the language of the Command Paper: it must be unequivocal. Whether the ceasefire may be reasonably regarded as unequivocal depends on all the circumstances, including prior conduct and how soon before 10 June it is purported to be restored. I did not just think of that: I said the same thing on Second Reading. That is the extent to which I am able to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
The hon. and learned Gentleman then asked what would occur if parties spin out the negotiations without decommissioning taking place. It depends on how the participants to the negotiations tighten the procedures that will be required to implement the commitment to the Mitchell six and to address the modalities of decommissioning. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), addressed that issue on Second Reading when he said:
It is essential that, well before 10 June, there is a discussion between the constitutional parties and the two Governments on the exact procedures that we shall follow on 10 June so that we can be

sure that there is a commitment, that it is given in a clear way and that we do not find things disappearing in a cloud of obfuscation and Anglo-Irishese".—[Official Report, 18 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 876.]
On that occasion, I said that we have to clarify what will be required, and to do so in good time. I think that I said also—I am quoting from memory and not from Hansard—that the discussions should take place soon. That is the extent to which I can answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. He raises an extremely germane point, which the Government recognise is significant.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I refer the Secretary of State back to his point about discipline. He seemed to imply that those who attend the talks, and not the Government, will discipline people. Mr. Adams has said that he will try to break into the talks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that Mr. Adams tried to break into the last meeting and that police were called to keep him out of the Stormont conference. It is impossible for ordinary parties to the talks to discipline anyone from Sinn Fein-IRA. The Government must give an undertaking that they will deal with the paramilitaries and anyone else who breaches the agreement.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Sinn Fein was not invited to the talks to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Its representatives were therefore not admitted to the premises, which were controlled by the Government. Similarly, if Sinn Fein does not comply with the requirements that I have mentioned, its nominated representatives will not be invited to select teams and they will be excluded from any future talks. If Sinn Fein or anyone else fails to sign up to the Mitchell six, they will not be entitled to participate in the negotiations, as paragraph 17 of the groundwork Command Paper states. I do not think that we need to write into the Bill the way in which our decision will be implemented. Sinn Fein would not be entitled to participate, and that would be that. We would then see what happened. I do not think that I need to be more specific at this stage.

Mr. Wilshire: I hope my right hon. and learned Friend realises that I am trying very hard to support him. He said that in his opinion it is not necessary for individuals as well as parties to sign up to the principles. What would be wrong with requiring individuals to sign? If there is nothing wrong with that, will he concede that point and make it easier for me to support him?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: There is obviously nothing wrong with it morally, but I think that there are some practical difficulties. Individuals may claim that they stand by their undertakings in spite of their party's actions. It is hard to see what such a move would add to the proceedings. Any individuals who were excluded for demonstrably dishonouring the Mitchell six would probably be excluded as a result of an IRA action, so we would have to exclude the whole delegation.
7.45 pm
I understand what is in the mind of my hon. Friend and in the mind of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). I recognise that there is intense distaste at the prospect of sitting down at a table with those who have associated themselves—to put it mildly—with


abominable crimes. However, we are seeking to bring together people who, however lamentably, by reason of the past have a significant democratic mandate. As a result of that mandate, we are trying to bring those people into the negotiations in recognition of the fact, not that they can veto the process, but that their absence may make it harder for any ultimate solution that may be arrived at to stick. We want to include those parties in the negotiations if we can—provided that they have signed up to all the democratic principles. There is deep distaste for that proposition—which I share as a result of some practical experience—but that is what lies behind the difficult line that we must tread in the circumstances.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some hon. Members are very concerned about his use of the phrase "to address" in relation to the six Mitchell principles? Those principles are absolutely clear: there is no doubt about their meaning. Why must we "address" those six principles when everyone knows what they mean? If we "address" them as part of the forum exchanges prior to forming negotiating teams, it will protract the discussion and enable people to slip under, over or around those principles as recognised by this place and by most people.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I would deserve my hon. Friend's thunderbolts if we were proposing to address the Mitchell principles, but we are not. I correct my hon. Friend rather gently as I know that the language is not easy to distinguish unless one has lived with it—as has been my lot for some time.
We have said that the principles shall be signed: each and every participant shall make it clear that they are committed totally and absolutely to the Mitchell principles of non-violence and democracy. The phrase "to address" refers to some different proposals made by Mitchell about decommissioning. They are specific proposals about how there shall be a verifiable means and so forth. I endeavoured to explain that, as there is more than one way of achieving them, it is sensible to use the phrase "to address". It is quite different from the principles.

Mr. Winterton: I wish to clarify that point further. I understood that decommissioning was part of the democratic process. If that is so, why do we need to "address" decommissioning? One either signs up to it and honours it, or one does not.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: That is perfectly true when it comes to the principles. As to the proposals, there are several ways of going about it, but I will not repeat myself. I have been reminded that I am going on a bit—it is because I have endeavoured to answer all the questions put to me—so I shall now turn briefly to the amendments.
I would like to be able to help, but I cannot advise the Committee to accept any of the amendments.
I believe that I have sufficiently dealt with amendment No. 2 in the argument that I have given off the cuff rather than by reading the brief, so I hope that I shall not be regarded as discourteous if I do not say more.
Government amendment No. 27 makes it clear that the reference to the Command Paper is to paragraphs 8 and 9. As for amendment No. 93, tabled by the hon. Member

for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we believe that the Command Paper—as narrowed down by reference to paragraphs 8 and 9—is a much more serviceable point of reference than the Mitchell report, which is much broader. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept, in the light of what I have said, that it is desirable that we should retain the reference to the Command Paper rather than to Mitchell as his amendment suggests.
I would have liked to accept amendment No. 106, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I have tried hard to discover whether we can prudently include the words "in full", but I have had vehement advice from the draftsmen that that would dangerously, and unnecessarily, open channels for judicial review and challenge and that we would be unwise to solicit such actions. The words would add nothing to the effect, but they would open opportunities for challenge. That is the real reason why I am not able to accept the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: Perhaps the Secretary of State would care to say more about why it would open up such channels. Is he frightened that in some way the Bill is sailing very close to hybridity?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have asked for this in terms. The words "in full" add nothing to the legal effect, but the courts would have to try to give them meaning and it is anyone's guess what they might conclude. That would materially increase the possibility and danger of challenge to what is at present a simple discretion. I fear that that is what I have to say to the hon. Gentleman on the subject.
The effect of amendment No. 105 would be that the requirements in the Command Paper must be met not only in relation to the party concerned but in relation to
any paramilitary party or proscribed organisation with which…that party…has links or for whom that party purports to speak.
In the light of what I have said about Sinn Fein and what it will have to do and about signing up to the six Mitchell principles, the hon. Member for East Londonderry can be reassured that clause 2 meets his requirements without the need for the amendment.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will concede that I have dealt at some length with what he said. He shakes his head—I hope that that means that he thinks that my answer is unsatisfactory rather than that I have not dealt with the point.
I apologise for taking some time. I invite those hon. Members who have tabled the amendments to consider, after full reassurance, whether they might decide not to press the amendments.

Mr. Peter Robinson: It is interesting that the Secretary of State, having closed his ears to the strength of the arguments that have been made by those who have tabled the amendments, suggests that he has in some way answered the points. In fact, he has at best skirted round the arguments and, in most cases, there has been a long breadth between what he argued at the Dispatch Box and the points that were raised in the debate.
During the Secretary of State's mild rebuke and gentle correction of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), he used language that was inaccurate. The Secretary of State said that there was no reference to a need to address the principles because the words "need to address" referred to the proposals for decommissioning.
That was absolutely right, but he then said that the principles indicated that the participants would make the proposals clear. That is not what the Command Paper says. If the Command Paper had said that, it would have been of some assistance to us. The Command Paper says that the participants would need to make their commitment to the principles clear. We have already gone into the difference between "would need to" and "shall" in the Mitchell principles. The reference to "need to address" has not, in my view, been satisfactorily dealt with. The very fact that the Secretary of State is now envisaging the possibility of legal recourse being taken by some frustrated participants suggests that the words of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), in the course of his short remarks, may be accurate.
It is because of the necessity for the Committee to ensure precision in order to avoid difficulties later in the courts that I believe the amendments should be accepted. There is little doubt that some people out there will take great pleasure in having recourse to the courts on these issues. The less precise the language used in the Bill, the more likely it is that there could be an unfavourable outcome to such a challenge. For that reason, among many others, we have used precise language in amendment No. 2.
As hon. Members would probably expect me to say, I believe that amendment No. 2 is the most comprehensive of the amendments in this group. It would set a standard for those who will take part in negotiations. Therefore, the question is not, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) suggested, one of ascertaining which route is most likely to lead to a successful outcome to negotiations. Amendment No. 2 would set down the standard that would be required of those who will participate in negotiations. As the Secretary of State and others have clearly recognised, it is simply not acceptable for people to walk through the doors into negotiations who have, the day before, been involved in violence, or to expect people to accept their word. People could bomb London or elsewhere one day and the next day be part of a negotiating process that everyone hopes will lead to a peaceful outcome. I must tell the official Opposition that the question is not about the most likely route to a favourable result; it is about setting, at the outset, the standards that will be required of those who are to participate.
The Government have fudged the issue. I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). Clearly, in politics, there is a time for vagueness and a time for clarity. In the Command Paper, there are issues on which perhaps it is more sensible to be vague at this stage than to be clear, but it is abundantly clear that this issue, at a later stage, will be a matter of contention. If hon. Members believe that to be the case, we should be as precise as it is possible to be so that nobody is left in any doubt about the criteria that have to be met.
We must all have had experience in recent years of the Government giving a wink and nod to suggest that the wording of a document can be loosened at a later stage. The Government have suggested that they might find a circuitous route to get round the language laid down in certain documents. When people come to the point, they have found that the route is closed off and they then feel that they have been betrayed, just as many parties in Northern Ireland, of the fringe variety, feel that they have

been betrayed by the Government, because those parties are now being required to go beyond what they were asked to do during discussions with the Government about ceasefire arrangements.
I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that there is value in precise wording for clause 2. I am rather disappointed, though not surprised, that the Government are reverting to type and simply steamrollering the Bill through the House. I trust that the Secretary of State will realise that it is not satisfactory that people who will be present at the negotiations can be put under threat by the participation in those negotiations of people who are effectively saying that, if their demands are not met, they will start up their campaign again. The fact that the Secretary of State is prepared to fudge the issue leads many of us to fear that, somewhere down the line, he will view getting Sinn Fein to the talks, come what may, as his prime motive.
We fear that, if that means that the Secretary of State must use weaker wording than he used earlier, he will ultimately be prepared to do so. We fear it particularly when we note that there is nothing about talking to the Provisional IRA that would turn the stomach of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. As was revealed over the weekend, for a long period while they were telling us that such dialogue would turn their stomachs, they were engaged in dialogue with Sinn Fein.
My amendment is supported by the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party and my party, and we intend to push it to a Division because we consider it essential for the views of the House to be tested. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not been prepared to make the smallest gesture towards those of us who have tabled the amendments.

8 pm

Mr. Trimble: These are probably the most important amendments that we shall discuss this evening. They try to spell out clearly what should happen in the negotiations, and to clarify the inclusion or exclusion of certain parties. In effect, the Secretary of State has argued against such precision, and we are left with the fairly general statements—featuring a certain amount of ambiguity—in the Command Paper known as the ground rules.
Following the route suggested by the Secretary of State would require us to have a degree of confidence in the way in which the Government interpret, and will apply, the statements in the ground rules. I waited until the Secretary of State had spoken before expressing my views, but I regret to say that, having heard what he had to say about two important points, I am somewhat disappointed.
The Secretary of State quoted from my Second Reading speech. I was glad that he did, because it is essential for us to be clear about what will happen when the talks open, but I would have preferred that to be clarified publicly. All parties in the House, and elsewhere, that may be contemplating involvement in the negotiations must know exactly what will happen. None of us wishes to engage in any form of dialogue with those—not just Sinn Fein—who have committed appalling atrocities in the past until we know of the existence of a clear commitment: the total and absolute commitment referred to by the Secretary of State and in the ground rules.
Just as important, however, is the question of what happens thereafter. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out that I had signed the


amendment that he tabled originally; I am rather sorry that I did not also sign amendment No. 85, tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), which also makes clear what will happen afterwards. The Secretary of State disappointed us gravely by saying that it would be for the parties collectively to act, thus giving a clear indication that he intends to duck his obligations.
The Secretary of State has responsibilities in this regard. It would be much better if the criteria for the exclusion of parties that act contrary to the Mitchell principles on peace and democracy, or fail to implement those principles, were written into the Bill as they are written into paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules.
At the opening of the talks we are likely to be issued with a postdated cheque, which we fully expect to be dishonoured. The procedures that will apply when it has been dishonoured should be made just as clear. The Government have accepted the principle of narrowing the reference to the communiqué in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Cm 3232, but those paragraphs relate to the original invitation. The Government should accept a similar obligation with regard to paragraph 17: it should be included as well. The Government should have a duty to exclude delegates, which would require the rewriting of clause 2(3). It is not good enough for the Government to duck those obligations by transferring them to the parties collectively; they should not shirk their responsibilities.

Mr. Wilshire: When I explained the purpose of the four amendments that I had tabled, I said that I wanted to listen to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and then decide whether any further comment was necessary.
As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has just said, our present debate lies at the heart of the Bill—at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. As I have repeatedly said, the matters that we are discussing include what, for me, are two key issues: the clear distinction between asking people to sign something and asking them to address a matter, and the difference between saying that something is permanent and simply reinstating it.
Every time we debate these matters, Ministers give the same response. They say, "Yes, you are right; this will happen. There is nothing to worry about; all will be well. We have given you assurances before." Hansard is littered with such responses. In all the time during which I have raised such issues, however, I have received not a single reply that would change anything, or give effect to those reassurances. Not one amendment has been considered acceptable tonight, although I stressed that, although a measure might not appear necessary, there was nothing wrong with introducing it if that would reassure some of us.
As a result, I am sorry to say that I feel forced to do something that I have never done before, and vote against my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do not see this as a party-political issue pure and simple; indeed, the existence of a consensus suggests that more than party politics is involved. I hope I have made it clear over the months that, for me at least—and doubtless for others—the issues that we are discussing raise matters of personal conscience. What is happening flies in the face of my fundamental commitment to democracy.
I simply cannot bring myself to accept that others should be expected to sit down with evil killers who have not even signed up to anything before the start of the talks, and with people who have broken a temporary truce when it suited their purpose. For me those matters go deep, and they are matters of conscience. I have said time and again that I am unhappy, but there comes a point when it is necessary to show that, as well as to say it.
I would prefer to vote for my amendment, No. 76, but I understand only too clearly that, with an all-party consensus, any amendment will be defeated. I have serious reservations about amendment No. 2, which has been moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) but, rather than divide the Committee twice unnecessarily, despite those reservations, I shall vote for it. I hope that the Committee will note that I would have preferred to vote for a different amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 233.

Division No. 102]
[8.09 pm


AYES


Beggs, Roy
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Trimble, David


McCartney, Robert
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Maginnis, Ken
Wilshire, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Mr. William Ross and


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Mr. Peter Robinson.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carrington, Matthew


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chidgey, David


Ashby, David
Chisholm, Malcolm


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coffey, Ann


Bames, Harry
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Corbyn, Jeremy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cran, James


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bermingham, Gerald
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Blunkett, David
Dover, Den


Boateng, Paul
Dowd, Jim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Duncan, Alan


Booth, Hartley
Duncan Smith, Iain


Boswell, Tim
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dykes, Hugh


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Eagle, Ms Angela


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fishbum, Dudley


Budgen, Nicholas
Fisher, Mark


Burns, Simon
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butler, Peter
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Canavan, Dennis
French, Douglas


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Fry, Sir Peter


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, Sir George






Gill, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Miller, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, Rt Hon William
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Murphy, Paul


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Norris, Steve


Harvey, Nick
Oppenheim, Phillip


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Hawkins, Nick
Paice, James


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendron, Dr Joe
Pickles, Eric


Hendry, Charles
Pope, Greg


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Horam, John
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Richards, Rod


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hume, John
Robathan, Andrew


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunter, Andrew
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hutton, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Illsley, Eric
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Ingram, Adam
Sackville, Tom


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staffs)
Skinner, Dennis


Jessel, Toby
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Spring, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sproat, Iain


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkwood, Archy
Stern, Michael


Knapman, Roger
Stott, Roger


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Sweeney, Walter


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sykes, John


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Legg, Barry
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lidington, David
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Timms, Stephen


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Lord, Michael
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


McGrady, Eddie
Walden, George


MacKay, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Mackinlay, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Watts, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Whitney, Ray


Madden, Max
Whittingdale, John


Marlow, Tony
Widdecombe, Ann


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry





Wilkinson, John
Worthington, Tony


Willetts, David
Yeo, Tim


Winterton, Mrs Ann(Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas(Macc'fld)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Gary Streeter and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Derek Conway.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 1, line 20, after first 'in', insert
'paragraphs 8 and 9 of'.—[Sir Patrick Mayhew.]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

THE FORUM

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 114, in page 2, line 3, after 'Ireland', insert
'and an accurate record of such deliberations shall be published and their recommendations made available to the negotiating teams and to the Secretary of State.'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 4, after 'shall' insert 'primarily'.
No. 5, in page 2, line 4, leave out 'only' and insert
'but it may, after deliberation, come to a resolution on any matter and may determine the level of support which exists for any proposal submitted by any of the participants in the negotiations'.
No. 113, in page 2, line 4, after 'only', insert
'but it may make recommendations to the negotiating teams and to the Secretary of State.'.
No. 29, in page 2, line 6, leave out from 'functions' to end of line 7.
No. 75, in page 2, line 6, after first 'or', insert
'(subject to the provisions of paragraph 3A of Schedule 2) '.
No. 4, in page 2, line 6, leave out 'course or outcome' and insert 'or course'.
No. 112, in page 2, line 7, after 'I', insert
'but that it may debate any area currently the subject of negotiations and it shall deliberate on any report produced by the negotiations.'.
No. 102, in page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (4)
No. 6, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'if' and insert 'when'.
No. 28, in page 2, line 8, leave out
', in accordance with any rules of procedure adopted by them, '.
No. 90, in page 2, line 9, leave out
'refer any matter to the forum'
and insert
'decide to consult the forum on any matter.'.
No. 7, in page 2, line 9, leave out from 'forum' to end of line 10 and insert
'it shall consider such matters and determine the level of support which exists for any agreement reached by the participants in the negotiations'.
No. 91, in page 2, line 10, after 'matter', insert
'but any such consideration shall be deliberative only and shall not in any way determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiating.'.
No. 8, in page 2, line 11, at end add—


'(6)—'No agreement shall be reached by the participants in the negotiations unless it is tested to measure its level of support in the forum and shall not be considered to have reached sufficient consensus as referred to in Command Paper 3232 unless it is approved on a vote by at least 75 per cent of those voting.'.
No. 68, in schedule 2, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
'3A. The forum shall elect the independent chairperson referred to in paragraph 20 of Command Paper 3232.'.

Mr. Ross: The intention here is to ensure that, when we have the election to the forum and go to the trouble and expense of proposing candidates, of selecting them and of putting their parties through all the traumas associated with an election, the people who are elected have a job to do. I and, I think, any sensible person believe that people are elected not in a vacuum, but to do a job. Under the Bill, only a small number of the people who are elected will be given a job of any real significance.
The mass of members elected to the forum will be called together only as and when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland decides to do so or when something is referred to them by the negotiators. That is wrong. The forum is much the larger body of opinion. The people on it will represent directly the electorate and will have gone there to put the electorate's view.
I and my colleagues have total confidence in the leader of our party. We know his ability in advancing the party's views, but no matter how sensible his and other negotiators' views, other people will have been elected. Many of them will wish to have their opinion listened to. People who have voted for the party in their constituency will wish to know that the people for whom they have voted have the right to speak on their behalf. All that this group of amendments tries to do is to ensure that those people will be able to do just that.
In amendment No. 114, I specifically ask that an accurate record of such deliberations be published. When we come into the House tomorrow morning, we will be able to pick up Hansard, which will give an almost verbatim report—certainly a report that gives the sense of all that has been said in the Chamber today. As we all know, on many occasions, exchanges in this place are heated. At times, one does not hear every syllable that is uttered and it is difficult to unravel the obscure and ambiguous language that is such a characteristic of the Northern Ireland Office and its Ministers. We have had quite an exhibition of that this afternoon. Time and again, we have had to go back to the Ministry.

Mr. Ancram: indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: The Minister shakes his head. That shows simply that he is not aware of the reality of what he has uttered and the lack of precision and accuracy that we find in what he says. We would like, therefore, to read as soon as possible exactly what everyone has said and what people have thought so that we understand precisely what they were getting at and can question and probe.
We are dealing not with a small matter of a law that might be changed next year, or perhaps in a few months' time, but with the future existence of the United Kingdom as we know it and Northern Ireland's place within the UK. Surely, therefore, it is only right that the people who are elected to negotiate and to speak on behalf of Northern Ireland's electorate should

have the opportunity to make their voice heard and that everyone should have the opportunity to read what their representatives have said. That is a reasonable view.
I make the general case. No doubt it will be followed up by my right hon. and hon. Friends and others. We are simply saying to the Government: "Let us have the opportunity to make our points, to keep a clear record and, in future years, to be able to know what was said on the electorate's behalf by their representatives."
Unfortunately, throughout the passage of the Bill, a clear effort has been made to limit the forum to ensure that it can do little or nothing and that those who are elected to it are deliberately bypassed and deprived of any power, authority or capacity to extend the debate on the needs of Northern Ireland's people. For example, think what a rich day the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who speaks for the Social Democratic and Labour party, would have had discussing bovine spongiform encephalopathy if the forum had been allowed to debate such a subject and of the wonderful opportunity that he would have had to debate the difficulties that the hospitals in his constituency have encountered, which he has tried to make clear, but which he could have made clear with even greater force within the smaller group in Northern Ireland.
A body will be elected that will represent all Northern Ireland's people in a way that has never been attempted before. This unique, novel formula is intended to ensure that even the teeniest group in the community will have its voice—and what do we find? The representatives are to be elected and then gagged. They will not be able to make their views clear or do the job that the electorate expect them to do. That is wrong.
In my efforts to extend the body's remit to ensure that it can do those things, that it can debate and call to account, as far as possible, in its limited way, the Minister of the Crown, I should have thought that I was doing something that everyone who believes in democracy in this place would have applauded, but what do I find? I fear that, yet again, the Government will resist my reasonable points. It is plain that the electorate will not understand the deliberate limiting or gagging of elected representatives. They will say to those folk, "What about the slates that have blown off my house?" The reply will be, "You could go to your councillor or your Member of Parliament, " which is not satisfactory.
In this series of modest proposals, I am opening the door—not very wide; it is just a small crack—so that the representatives will have the opportunity to expand the role that the Government intend to allow them. I am not in favour of electing a body and then bypassing it. As I said, the negotiators form a very small team. They cannot possibly think of everything or deal with every jot and tittle and might therefore be very happy to have a bit of extra help. Amendment No. 112 would allow just that.
8.30 pm
I appreciate that one or two others are trying to reach the same end by slightly different means. I do not object to that. None of us manages to get our amendments as precise and accurate as we would like to think we do, and some people may accomplish the task rather more neatly than I have done. I welcome that, but I have made an effort. However, I do object to amendment No. 102,


tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who was so helpful in the previous debate. Now, he is trying to gag the forum completely, which is completely unacceptable.
The amendments are an effort to introduce an incentive for people to stand for the body; they are also an attempt to probe exactly what the Government are trying to do by limiting the forum.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 3, 5, 4, 6, 7 and 8, which deal with the forum. If amendments Nos. 3 and 5 were accepted, they would cause clause 3(2) to read as follows:
The functions of the forum shall primarily be deliberative but it may, after deliberation, come to a resolution on any matter and may determine the level of support which exists for any proposal submitted by any of the participants in the negotiations".
Amendment No. 4 would cause clause 3(3) to read:
Accordingly the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions, "—
I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) notes that carefully, because it seems that the nationalists are fearful, but we are stressing that the forum will not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions—
or any power to determine the conduct or course of the negotiations mentioned in section 1.
Amendment No. 6 would cause subsection (4) to read:
But when, in accordance with any rules of procedure adopted by them, the participants in the negotiations refer any matter to the forum".
Amendment No. 7 would then cause some words to be omitted and the following to be added:
it shall consider such matters and determine the level of support which exists for any agreement reached by the participants in the negotiations".
Amendment No. 8 would add a sixth subsection, which would read:
No agreement shall be reached by the participants in the negotiations unless it is tested to measure its level of support in the forum and shall not be considered to have reached sufficient consensus as referred to in Command Paper 3232 unless it is approved on a vote by at least 75 per cent of those voting.
It is very strange that the Government have been prepared to allow self-appointed people to carry on negotiations, some of whom have never been elected to any body in Northern Ireland, and that for a period—stretching now to about two years—the Government have appointed rooms for and put the names of the leaders of these groups on the doors at Stormont and held secretive meetings with them. No one knows what was said to them.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, some of those people are now saying that promises were made to them by the Government which the Government have not kept. Some are saying that conditions are now asked of them which were not asked of them previously. The Minister of State has been photographed with these people from time to time. Although some of them have not been elected to any body in Northern Ireland, long talks have been held with them. We have been privileged outside the remit of the talks to listen to them on the steps of Stormont or at press conferences telling us the types of things being discussed.
We receive letters from a Mr. Spring from Dublin, telling us that we will now be permitted to pass some sort of judgment on a paper that he submits to us—perhaps we would like to come to talk to him. In fact, he says that he did not know why the leader of the Ulster Unionist party did not go to have a nice chat with him. He has never said that I could have a nice chat with him, but at least he said that the leader of the UUP could do so.
That is not the way to negotiate the future of any country. If hon. Members think that the Ulster people are so dumb that they are prepared to put up with such treatment and be dealt with as if they had no real say in the future of our Province, they had better be disillusioned once and for all.
Some hon. Members think that they know what is good for Northern Ireland, but one has only to look back over their record since they took over direct rule. They blamed the Unionists for 50 years of bad rule in Northern Ireland. Certainly, they have not come very far because the other day I heard a republican saying that things were worse than ever. He said that there was now more discrimination, unequal treatment and terrible indignity suffered by the republican people than ever before. Some people will never be satisfied. If the apostle Paul introduced heaven to Northern Ireland, some would think that heaven was purgatory or some worse place.
I recently read a history of the House and the debates on nationalism in it. It made very interesting reading. One need only change the names to have the same hurling of contempt on all British rule in the island of Ireland. Things have not really changed, but we are now told that we are to have people elected to a body.
We are told that there is to be an election. People were at first to be elected to a body, but that body has become a forum. I always thought that a forum was a place where people exchanged views and came to a resolution about what they thought should happen. However, we are to have a forum that cannot come to any decision. It is supposed to encourage dialogue but not to come to any decisions.
I wonder how the House responded to the slip of the tongue made by the Secretary of State when he said the negotiating body would come "down" from the forum. Evidently, on that occasion, he thought that the forum was higher than the negotiating body. So it is, because if we did not have a forum we could not have a negotiating body.
Some parties are not going to get six people on to that forum. In fact, they will get nobody elected by direct vote of the people. If they are fortunate to squeeze into the first 10 parties, they will of course be given two representatives who will be able to attend the forum. They can bring who they like with them. Since the IRA has been taking members of its supreme command to the talks that have taken place at Stormont, one wonders what sort of characters will be pushed into the talks, which we, as good democrats, are supposed to support and in which we are supposed to have deliberations with such people. Every effort has been made to destroy the forum that was to be appointed as the place where the people of Northern Ireland would have an opportunity to express in public what they hoped would be achieved for them.
Where did that attack commence? It commenced with IRA-Sinn Fein, which told us that there should be no election. I do not wonder why a terrorist organisation such


as IRA-Sinn Fein would not want an election. It is not difficult to find an answer to that when one considers the way in which it has crucified its own co-religionists and carried out such desperate beatings in its own areas. I would not think that a person going around on behalf of IRA-Sinn Fein would be too well received in some homes in Northern Ireland.
IRA-Sinn Fein said, "No election, " and then said that there should definitely be no forum. It will probably try to bypass the forum, for in the forum it would have to talk directly to and engage in debate with the grass-roots representatives of all the Protestant people. It would not be sitting in the cosy company of the two Governments, who for so long have conceded and conceded. Our Government published a book that told of about 100 concessions that they have made to the IRA. Not one concession was made by the IRA to them.
The attack was joined by the Dublin Government. Mr. Spring said, "We do not need elections, " although it is no part of his jurisdiction. He said, "There is to be no election and there is to be no forum. We should go direct to the negotiating table." The SDLP also took that attitude, although I must say to it that at least the parties of Northern Ireland have had talks together and, although there is a great divide between us, at least we came to some broad agreements on things relevant to an election being held. A degree of democracy prevailed so that we could have a conversation and put our views forcefully to one another. Those meetings were not a cosy little chat, because we all have strong views, which we put and discussed. We agreed to disagree, but at least we made considerable progress.
The best way in which to have negotiations in Northern Ireland is in an ad hoc way, when parties that choose to talk come together and start negotiating. I hope that, when the procedure has got under way, that is the way in which we shall proceed. An effort is still being made, however, by many to dehorn the procedure completely.
8.45 pm
I apologise to the Labour Front-Bench team because I should have said that its members, too, were not keen on the forum. When I spoke to their spokesperson, they felt that the forum should be elected, but then they thought that the forum should be forgotten and that they should go immediately to negotiations. I do not want them to feel that I did not praise them for joining the rest. I would not like them to think that their opinions were rejected and not listened to.
So there was all that conspiracy, saying, "Do not let the Ulster people have a forum; do not let them express themselves in that forum; do not let any democracy prevail; do your best to silence them, they should not be heard anyway." When the House takes that viewpoint—the words of the Secretary of State tonight have been heard in Northern Ireland—the people in Northern Ireland feel that a dark cloud has descended, and that the road to elections and a democratic voice of the people being heard will be bound by rules and regulations.
One matter that concerns me greatly is that the Government will not take responsibility to deal with those who violate what we are told are the first principles of getting to the table. I do not know what

happens when those negotiators meet. The night before we have read in the press some of the things that they have said about the future of Northern Ireland. We have heard Mr. McGuinness say that they have nothing more to give—not that they ever gave anything—but murder and mayhem and that it is up to the Unionists to give. I wonder what they want us to give. I think that they want us to surrender to a united Ireland.
After that, the same thing would happen as happened in the south of Ireland. When the line was drawn, 10 per cent. of the entire population of the Irish Republic was Protestant. Today, only 2.5 per cent. of the population is Protestant, which means that 80 per cent. of the Protestant population of the south of Ireland have disappeared. [Interruption.] The Labour Front-Bench team can argue what they like, but that is a fact. One need only talk to people in the south of Ireland to discover how the land has been denuded of the Protestant population.
I heard Gerry Adams say, "We have to get the Brits out. There can be no more British rule. That is what we are going to talk about in the talks." I always thought that nothing could be done to the constitution of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom until we had a referendum, but, evidently, now there is a republican consensus. We heard Mr. Ahern on the same track last night in Dublin. He was praising the IRA leadership and castigating Mr. Bruton because he did not invite Gerry Adams to discuss the breakdown of the ceasefire with him, as if the Taoiseach should have immediately consulted Gerry Adams and asked him to explain why the ceasefire had broken down. Those are all the things that are happening in the environment that surrounds the coming election.
Are we to have a body that can express the views of the people of Northern Ireland or not? How far are those views to be expressed? Will this body have any power at all to impress on those who are ceded from it to be negotiators or is it to have none?
Will the people of Northern Ireland be taken into account? They certainly cannot be taken into account by the negotiators because, we are told, they will negotiate three days a week. I had a letter from the Secretary of State this morning in which he said that there would be negotiating three days a week. If three days a week are spent negotiating, how shall we meet representatives of the Churches, of the trade unions and of all the other people who want to talk to us? That will be impossible.
We should remember that there could be as many as 70 people at the table in the negotiations, and perhaps even more. One can understand how large the room will have to be and one can understand what a folly it will be when 70 people are sitting around the table trying to negotiate. That will be impossible.
I believe that there should be committees in the forum and I believe that the committees could do a useful job in sounding out the views of various people and reporting those views to the negotiators who will be speaking for them. That matter needs to be taken care of. However, in the letter I received from the Secretary of State this morning, I was told that the forum may meet just once a week. How can the forum possibly do a useful task when there are official meetings of the negotiators? The Dublin Government will be able to say, "We must have an official meeting of the negotiators." That will mean that the forum in Northern Ireland will have to quit its work.
I would like the Secretary of State and the Minister to tell us how the system will work. How can we have committees of the forum in session which suddenly have to stop their work because there are going to be negotiations? Does the Secretary of State envisage that the negotiations will be held as the previous negotiations were held and that all the parties concerned will be round the table? We shall have to wait long hours until the Irish delegation gets to the meeting. Having sat and kicked our heels for at least an hour until the Irish Government get there, we shall have to wait until matters proceed on a grace and favour basis.
We must discover what opportunities the forum will have. People will stand for election. What do the leaders of the parties tell those people? Do they tell them, "Well, you will have a job of work to do"? Alternatively, do they tell them, "You are very nice; give up your job"? I know a young man who wanted to stand for my party. He told his boss, who said, "Well, I think you would be better resigning your job." I would have thought that the Secretary of State should at least say that he wants people from all walks of life in the negotiations. Industry should be exhorted to let off from their work those who want to stand and to be elected so that they can make a contribution to the future of our Province. That should be done immediately.
Unlike some of the other leaders, I now have all my candidates in place, so I am not pushed for time. However, it was a difficult task to ask people to stand for a forum when no one knew what the forum was or even if it was going to exist. I am sure that any person in politics will understand how difficult it is at times to get good candidates to stand, especially if they do not know what they are standing for, what remuneration they will get or what will happen to them after they are elected. There is a great difficulty.
We agree that the functions of the forum should be primarily deliberative, although it should have other functions as well. We agree that the forum should have no legislative, executive or administrative functions. We are fully agreed on that and I do not think that any of the major parties desires anything else for the forum. However, we believe that those who are doing the negotiations—the leaders of the parties—should be able to test some of the things that are being discussed in that forum to see whether they have real support across the divide. It would be a useful function—a litmus test—to see exactly how the forum would respond to certain propositions. You should be well assured, Dame Janet, that if the proposals could not get past the forum, they would never succeed in a referendum of all the people of Northern Ireland. Anyone who thinks otherwise should think again.
The argument is posed, "What if there was a majority of Unionists?" The forum will certainly not have 75 per cent. of Unionists; that is one thing that will not happen. We have, therefore, included that figure in the amendment. There would have to be a broad consensus and every representative section would have to agree with the outcome in some way.
Under the rules of procedure, the forum could take up certain matters and discuss them. Added to that, we would want to see that the forum had the useful role of looking at the overall package. I suggest to the Committee that that would, indeed, be a useful role for the forum. Members of the forum will not, of course, be at the

negotiations; they will not determine the course of those negotiations or their conduct. That will be for the negotiators themselves to decide.
However, members of the forum will have influence in the outcome because they will have the opportunity to discuss the agreement, some agreement or a little agreement, whichever has been achieved. They will be able to look at that and discuss it, not behind closed doors, but in full public view so that all the people of Northern Ireland can understand what is happening and what the proposals on the table are. They would be able to understand what people were arguing about at Stormont, and what arguments the parties were putting forward to try to secure a future for our people and our families, for our children and our children's children.
The House would do well to ensure that the forum could do useful and rewarding work, and that those people could have a real say in shaping the future. Who are those people? They are people who are willing to make a sacrifice, because the remuneration offered is small, and some of them will have to leave their jobs and lose their pay.
Some of them will also put at risk their prospects of getting back into employment afterwards, because politicians are not the most likely people to get jobs in Northern Ireland. Former Members of Parliament find it easier to take early retirement than to get a job, and Members of the Stormont Assembly found it difficult to be re-employed. So here we have people who are prepared to make a sacrifice to do a reasonable job of work for the future of Northern Ireland. The House should encourage them in that role.
Again I stress the fact that we are not asking for executive, legislative or administrative functions. I do not want people to say, "You just want to turn the forum into a new Stormont." We want nothing of the sort. It should be the objective of the talks to bring about a situation in which we could have a real Assembly in Northern Ireland, with real powers to deal with the bread-and-butter issues that are important to all the people of Northern Ireland. But that must come after the negotiations, not during the negotiations, and we want to make that fact perfectly clear.
I have said to the candidates who will run for my party, "Do not think that you are MPs in embryo; you are only delegates to a forum. Your constituency does not really matter, because you will be elected to an all-Ulster body, and your job is to do the things that will help us as we seek to find a way forward for Northern Ireland now."
I commend the amendments to the House, including that moved by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The forum deserves to have a certain job of work to do. I believe that people who work together get to know one another, and if that happens, at least there will be some cement in the society that they hope will benefit from their contribution.

9 pm

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest, in that I was born and bred in Dublin, and I come from a family that has lived in Ireland for centuries. Probably my first memory is of Dublin during the war, when the bombs were falling, and my second memory is of the stories told me by my grandfather, who was involved in 1916. My father


woke on Easter day 1916 to see that his Easter egg had been hit by a bullet in the first moments of the rising. He never found out whether it was an English or an Irish bullet.
Eighty years later, we have an opportunity to turn back the clock for once, and to begin to think afresh. Are we to continue to fight the wars of 80 years ago and of 180 years ago, and even those of the 13th and 14th century—the time when my family first went to Ireland? Or shall we, as surely we must, begin to think about how we can take things forward?
This is probably the first time during the 13 years that I have been in the House that I have spoken on Irish matters in the Chamber. I have put my name to two of the amendments in the group, including that relating to the chairperson of the forum, and how that person should be appointed, because it seems to me that the forum, with all its faults, failings and limitations, represents a step forward, at long last. The differing views—they are numerous, and let us not underestimate them—will be aired, fully and frankly, I hope.
I take on board many of the fears and worries expressed by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Those fears and worries are realistic, because everything always takes place against the background of what happened yesterday, of the memories we all have, and of what we were taught as children about what happened in the past. However, there has to come a time when we put those memories behind us and think forward to the Ireland that we want to emerge.
I am not so conceited as to say that I have a solution of any sort. With the Irish, of both north and south, a little humility might not be bad thing. We should all accept that things have happened in history of which none of us is proud. Attitudes have been taken and deeds done which none of us can justify in the modern world.
I will keep my plea to the Government and the forum short, because one of the disadvantages of being an Irishman is that one can speak for ever and a day. We are well used to that; it is one of our great failings.

Mr. William Ross: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. He used a phrase that people should reflect on. He said that things that happened long ago would not be acceptable when viewed in the light of the modern world. That, however, is not the point of history. Many things have happened in the history of all nations that are not acceptable in a modern light. Indeed, there are things happening today—certainly, things have happened in our lifetimes—that are not acceptable, but they still happen.
Some of what was done in the past, by all nations, was done in the light of those people's view of the circumstances of the time and of the dangers in which they perceived themselves to be. I do not know whether that helps the hon. Gentleman, but it is dangerous to judge the past with modern views and 20:20 hindsight. That is never helpful.

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman goes down the path that I seek to go down. The things that happened 50, 60 or 70 years ago, happened in the context of their time. The people involved, whether they were right or wrong

by the standards or lights of others, believed that they were right. When we consider the situation now, we have to ask ourselves how to go forward. Of course injustices have been done on all sides over the centuries, but that is all I ask of the forum, in which I shall have no vote and play no part, because I do not live in Northern Ireland.
People will have to make sacrifices, from whatever quarter of the political spectrum they come. The hon. Member for North Antrim is right; one has to give up things when one takes part in public life. Whether one is a parish or district councillor or plays any other role in public life, we should not forget that those roles entail sacrifice.
Those who will play their part in the forum will make sacrifices. They may lose their jobs or their friends—people may disagree with their participation in the body—but they will make the sacrifice and play their part. From whatever part of the political spectrum they come, I hope that they will make their points forcefully and well, but in the spirit of looking to tomorrow. That leads me to my amendments, which deal with who is to be the independent chairman of the forum.
Should we look to the party that has the most seats? I believe that that would set the forum back. If we looked to someone in the forum, that would, in its way, set the body back. That is why my amendments talk of an independent chairman. I do not envy the person who will chair the body. It will probably be the most nightmarish task. There will be many conflicting factions and disputes. There is so much at stake that the person who performs that function must be someone who has the respect of the forum as a whole.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman carefully. The only time that I had the opportunity to talk about these matters outside the House with him, we had an interesting and helpful discussion. His argument was made to us in respect of the Prior assembly. Who would we get to chair that assembly? Who could control the people attending it? We got one of ourselves, the late Sir James Kilfedder.
When the election was being fought, no one would have said that he would have been the ideal man to chair it, but all parties that sat under him thought that he did well. They did not always agree with what he did. I did not agree with him when he threw out some of my members and rebuked me for saying things that, had I said them in this House, would have been ruled in order. But that assembly did well under his chairmanship.
I am not so sanguine as to think that, when we get all these people together, there will not be someone among them able to manage the chair of the assembly. I think that it would be—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I gave a warning earlier about interventions being shorter. I call the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham).

Mr. Bermingham: I take on board what the hon. Member for North Antrim says. I was listening with interest to his intervention, because I thought that he was coming round to my way of thinking.
The forum itself may throw up the person, and we were given a classic example there—someone who will command respect. One might find what I would call the independent chairman from within the forum. One might find him or her from without. I speak in the singular, rather than taking the politically correct stance of using the word "person", for which I apologise. "Chairperson" is a phrase of which I am not particularly fond, but be that as it may.
The outcome must be that the person commands respect. That person will have a formidable task on his or her hands. He or she must reflect the confidence of the forum. If that is achieved, and this is why the amendment stands in the way it does, in my view—it is a purely personal view—it would be the first step forward. One would then have an organisation that had someone it respected to command the way in which it was run.
I have listened carefully to hon. Members speaking to the other amendments in the group and I believe that the forum should not be merely an idle ship. It should play an important part, and be able to discuss a number of matters. I am not suggesting that it should have legislative, executive or any other powers, but it is an opportunity for people to discuss and debate various aspects of life in Northern Ireland to their mutual advantage. I do not know what will come from such discussions. Perhaps when people talk, ideas begin to flow, seeds are sown and new ideas grow. Like Mark Antony at the funeral of Julius Caesar, I have come not to praise the forum, merely to wish it well.
I sink back into my own Irish history, strongly urging on the Secretary of State the concept of an independent chairperson for the forum.

Mr. Trimble: I endorse much of what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said. I agree that the forum offers an important opportunity—a valuable opportunity for the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to debate, discuss and take evidence and to carry the debate forward positively. I am sure that the decision about electing a chairman, which will have to be carried out through the weighted majority of 75 per cent., will ensure a degree of independence. It will be interesting to see whether we manage to find the appropriate chairman from within the personnel of the forum. That remains to be seen.
Like the hon. Members for North Antrim and for St. Helens, South, I am anxious to ensure that the forum has the opportunity to engage in wide debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East tabled amendments that refer to the ability of the forum to debate and make recommendations. The reason for tabling such amendments is the apparently restrictive wording in clause 3.
I take the view that the words in clause 3 do not restrict the forum's ability to debate any issue that it regards as
relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland.
If that rubric of
promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland
gives the forum the opportunity to discuss any issue it considers to be relevant to those broad considerations, I am sure the forum will think that there is a wide range of matters that could be discussed.
That phrase will, of course, also cover all the matters that may arise in the negotiations, because it is inconceivable that there could be matters in the negotiation track that are not
relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding".
I take that broad phrase as giving the forum the opportunity to discuss anything that might be regarded as relevant to this process. If the forum discusses such matters, those discussions might or might not—depending on how they proceed—come to a conclusion, and might or might not result in reports or recommendations.

Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend has pointed out that, under the amendments we are discussing, it would presumably be possible for the forum to discuss almost anything. But schedule 2 says:
the forum shall not meet at any time notified by the Secretary of State to the chairman as being a time when, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it would not be appropriate for the forum to meet because negotiations within section 2 may take place.
I fear that that brake could be used by the Secretary of State to gag the forum.

Mr. Trimble: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, to which I should respond by making two points. First, amendments have been tabled which would clarify the matter, which we shall discuss when we reach that schedule. A second and more general point—it may be more relevant in practice—is that, as the Minister said earlier this evening, the conduct of the negotiations will be for the parties themselves.
If the Secretary of State was minded to use that provision in a manner that would be unduly restrictive of the forum's operation, there is a very simple remedy in the parties' hands. I imagine that a sufficient number of people will be engaged in the talks who are committed to the forum's success to ensure that meetings will not be held in a manner that would frustrate the forum's operation. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) that this is a matter in which the remedy is in our hands, and we can exercise it should the need arise.
It will be possible for the forum to discuss matters and for those discussions to conclude in whatever manner the forum decides, subject to whatever rules of procedure the forum may adopt. That reference to rules and procedure of course carries with it built-in safeguards, which are spelt out in greater detail in schedule 2. If the debates and discussions in the forum result in any form of conclusion, it will be entirely open to the parties engaged in the negotiations to refer to those matters.
This process and this legislation, in trying to separate negotiations from the forum, are flying a little against the reality that the same people from the same parties will be present in the forum and in the negotiations, and that some interaction will be inevitable.
I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 28 and 29. Amendment No. 29 proposes to delete the second half of clause 3(3). I do not think that the second half of clause 3(3) says anything at all. The beginning of clause 3(3) states:
the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions".


If it does not have any executive or administrative functions, it obviously does not have the power to determine anything in relation to the negotiations or to anything else.
The words in the second half of clause 3(3) are redundant and do not say or do anything because the forum does not have an executive or administrative function. The forum does not have power, and those words are unnecessary to the meaning. I understand that those words have been put into the Bill to meet the paranoia shown by certain parties about the forum, but one must make the point that the words are devoid of content.

Dr. Joe Hendron: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this question for me? In Northern Ireland we are divided by history. I can understand the amendments that have been moved today to strengthen the concept of a forum. I agree with some of the points that have been made, but others do not agree. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, within the broad nationalist community in the north of Ireland—I am not talking about paramilitary people—there is apprehension about the forum, and that it would be even greater if some of the amendments were carried? The apprehension relates to the fear of the old Stormont coming back at some stage in the future.

Mr. Trimble: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. He will have noted that, in referring to clause 3(3), I quoted with approval the statement that the forum would not have any legislative, administrative or executive functions. No effort is being made in this debate to amend that part of subsection (3) or to give the forum a function or power to determine. I understand the concern, and I understand that the additional words to which I have referred have been included as a result of that concern. I merely point out that the additional words in subsection (3) add nothing to what is already in the first half of subsection (3). That should give the hon. Gentleman adequate assurance.
Amendment No. 28 seeks to delete some words from clause 3(4). The reason why it has been tabled—I should be grateful for the Minister's response on this point—is that I find the reference to the rules of procedure to be adopted by parties to the negotiations somewhat curious in view of the detailed set of ground rules that have been formulated. I wonder what else there is, and what is meant by the reference to the rules of procedure. I should be grateful if the Minister would elucidate that.

Mr. McNamara: Listening to the speeches of the hon. Members for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) rekindled my fears about the purpose that the forum might pursue if the amendments were accepted. I cannot help feeling that it is a little naive of the hon. Member for Upper Bann to believe that, merely because the forum will not have any legislative, administrative or executive functions, the rest of the clause is redundant.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Antrim have said that the forum will make recommendations, come to conclusions and suggest things

that should or should not happen. Indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that the forum could discuss almost anything under the heading of promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland. It is a broad definition. The lines he sought to draw between what might be discussed in the negotiations and what might be discussed in the forum were very blurred—indeed, positively overlapping. Therefore, I should like to have some clarity from the Minister.
The Minister will recall that matters relating to the negotiations may be referred to the forum under clause 3(4) if the parties to the negotiations are agreeable. The only reference we have to the rules of the negotiations and of the business committee is what we find in paragraph 24 of the Command Paper. I shall read what is contained in brackets:
The rules for establishing sufficient consensus will be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants and such rules will ensure that any departure from the rule of unanimity is within minimal limits and will, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland.
They are the rules that are being laid down for the negotiations to take place. I take it from that that, with regard to clause 3(4), no decision will be taken to refer anything to the forum—unless by the parties to the negotiations—unless it has passed the hurdle that it will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland. Am Ito take it from that that they mean in terms of Northern Ireland—the representatives so elected to the forum by the communities in Northern Ireland—and that it will be the parties that have been elected and the negotiators who will decide when that is to happen?
If that is the case—although I regard the forum as something of a nonsense—if that power lies with the parties to the negotiations, my fears and those of my hon. Friends might be assuaged to a degree. However, if that is not the case, what we have created is a forum that will discuss all manner of things, that will be able to come to conclusions and that will have things referred to it from the negotiations, which it will seek to debate.
After the framework document, we wanted to have negotiating parties and negotiations rather than going into the election. We wanted the negotiators to have the ability to sit and negotiate without fearing that they had to look over their shoulders all the time to other people in another assembly who would be passing judgment, day in, day out, on the process of the negotiations. There might be cries of betrayal. We wanted to have negotiations before the elections to prevent that from happening—to come to some agreement and then ask the people of Northern Ireland to accept it or to reject it in a referendum as laid down in the framework document.
However, here we have the parties elected with a forum. If that all-embracing phrase in paragraph 24 relates to what can or cannot be said and debated in the forum on the recommendation of the negotiating parties, that is fine. However, if the argument were to be adopted that negotiations were likely to be conducted under rules and procedure for the negotiating parties—as they are to be for the rules of negotiations for the forum—that would be a dangerous
matter.

Mr. Robert McCartney: It would be of some assistance if all hon. Members realised that the purpose of the legislation is essentially to have a set of negotiators going about the business of trying to arrive at a consensus about the best way that a peaceful and, hopefully, permanent settlement can be achieved for the people of Northern
Ireland.
However, such a settlement—first, if it is to be achieved and, secondly, if it is to receive the democratic endorsement of those for whose benefit it is alleged to have been put in place—must have validation. There is no point in a set of secret negotiations taking place and a package being produced like a rabbit from a hat and placed before the people of Northern Ireland, who have not been made conscious and made aware in general terms of what those pledged to negotiate on their behalf have in mind.
9.30 pm
The fears of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and of some parties representing minority interests in the House are unjustified. If any package is to be approved in a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland, it is much more likely to receive the endorsement of the people in a referendum if they have previously been made aware in some form of plenary session of what those negotiating on their behalf have arrived at, and if those elected—the parties in and the delegates appointed by the electoral process—have had an opportunity to see it and endorse it.
It is pointless for the negotiators to present a package to an elected body in the forum for approval unless they present it to that body with a recommendation that the package should be endorsed and validated by the delegates in the
forum.
It is extremely unlikely that, in the absence of agreement within the negotiating teams, anything would see the light of day before the delegates in a plenary session of the forum. Every advantage would therefore be obtained by permitting the delegates, in a plenary session in the forum, to consider and examine and endorse the package that their negotiators have arrived at before it is unleashed on the general population in the form of a referendum.
Given that the negotiators who will provide the peace package to the general body in a plenary session were delegates appointed from all the members that have been chosen for the forum, it is very unlikely that they would take back to the forum in plenary session something that they could not endorse whole-heartedly and recommend for validation to that forum in plenary session.
That point was taken up on Second Reading. The example was given of the discussions that took place at Sunningdale in the early 1970s, when, as a result of a great deal of pressure—a great deal, I may say, of bullying by members of Her Majesty's Government—the late Brian Faulkner took back to Northern Ireland a deal, the Sunningdale agreement, which the pro-Union negotiators had accepted. Because there had been no validation by the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives generally, he failed to sell that peace package, as it then was, to the pro-Union constituency in Northern Ireland.
It therefore behoves the House, when considering the powers to be given to the forum, to think positively about what the forum can do to enhance, not hinder, the

endorsement of a peace package or settlement arrived at by the negotiators. There would be absolutely no point in the negotiators arriving at an agreement in secret if that agreement were not approved of by most of the delegates, and, as a result, caused a substantial division among those who were supposed to recommend it to the constituency of Northern Ireland in a referendum.
Therefore, those who labour under the misapprehension that we should give the forum powers other than those of a total cipher should think again: they may be formulating not a policy for achieving the acceptance of a negotiated peace, but a mode of operations that will militate against it.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: This is the first contribution from the Social Democratic and Labour party Benches in today's very long debate as my amendments were not selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means. However, it is appropriate that I should speak on behalf of my party about the forum question.
The purpose of the legislation is to facilitate negotiations and their successful outcome. We have not had negotiations. The legislation proposing elections and a forum is before us now because the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland simply refused to participate in such negotiations until they received assurances that, first, there would be an election that would confirm their electoral mandate for the 21st time in 20 years; and, secondly, that the forum would be appointed and granted the powers under clause 3, as amended.
The legislation makes provision for elections which would provide negotiators who would engage in talks and try to resolve the tremendous differences affecting all of the people of Northern Ireland, irrespective of their political beliefs or community affiliations. We believe that the elections could prove divisive. Elections, by their very nature, are confrontational—we fight elections—while negotiations strive for consensus: they are the antithesis of elections. Yet elections and negotiations are married in this document—and so be it.
The forum suggestion causes great concern in the community and among that part of the electorate that supports me and my party. We have seen many assemblies and forums over the years, all of which have failed. I have listened to the assurances given during today's debate by the leader of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and others. Such assurances are hollow when viewed against the backdrop of the amendments that have been proposed to clauses 2 and 3—all of which are designed to enhance the authoriry of the forum while, at the same time, diminishing and restricting the authority of the negotiating table and team. The powers drain from one to the other.
We fear that constant debate in a public forum will, as has occurred in the past—we are not looking into a crystal ball; we are drawing on experiences—lead to extreme debate and hot words, which often cannot be withdrawn. We are afraid that the negotiators will be pressurised into abandoning the necessary consensus and compromise for which they should strive.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. McGrady: This is my first contribution and I wish to develop my argument. The purpose of the negotiating team is to try to obtain consensus across very difficult strands of disagreement. We have been accused of being undemocratic because we do not support the concept of the forum. The forum is not a body that is designed to engage in democratic debate. That is not what it is about. The election is designed primarily to provide negotiators and to give confidence to the parties that need such confidence. With manifestos endorsed, the parties can come to the negotiating table to draw out a conclusion. To say that it is undemocratic to wish not to diminish that role is not a reasonable argument.
The other argument made against our opposition to the forum is that community groups and various people could come to the forum and make presentations. There is nothing to stop such people and community groups presenting their evidence directly to the negotiators, and not at third hand.

Mr. Maginnis: Is not the hon. Member manufacturing an argument that is without real substance? Does he not recall that during the 1992 negotiations, when only the negotiators were around the table, an impasse was reached again and again? Those of us who endeavoured, by putting substantive documents on the table, to move forward were thwarted because there was a totally opposite reaction to what we were trying to achieve. Does the hon. Member understand that—as well as having the purpose that was outlined by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney)—the forum can indeed be a constant conduit to the public, who need to understand what is happening, rather than be taken by surprise at the end of the process? When there is a confrontation or an impasse, not on a point but on assertions made on a particular point, a committee of the forum could take that away and discuss it and take evidence about the issue.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would draw breath. Interventions should be under a minute and the hon. Gentleman has been going for a minute and a quarter.

Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I thought that in Committee it was possible to make a point in some detail, as distinct from during Second Reading. I understand the rules of the House and I take your point, but surely I am entitled to wind up very briefly. I beg your indulgence.

The Chairman: Order. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had only just started, so I am not sure about winding up. The hon. Gentleman may, of course, make his own speech, but interventions—in the 22 years that I have been in the House—have always been of short duration and usually involve just one
question.

Mr. McGrady: I must confess that the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's intervention has now escaped me, but I believe that before he intervened I was dealing with the perception of democracy in terms of the forum. We are

told that it is to be a non-executive assembly that could have certain parliamentary attributes: that it could, for example, shadow a local government department.

Mr. Peter Robinson: We have not been told that.

Mr. McGrady: During Thursday's debate, the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party suggested that a sub-committee could be formed to deal with matters involving local government in Northern
Ireland.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman should obtain a copy of Hansard and read what my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim, (Rev. Ian Paisley) actually said. He said that, in the case of many subjects, the forum would be able to assist by taking representations from the public—from interested groups, for example—compiling a report and sending it to the negotiating teams, thus providing them with background information. One subject that he mentioned was local government in Northern Ireland. He merely said that the forum could consider the future of local government, and possible proposals for changes in its operation.

Mr. McGrady: That is the very point that I am making. The proposal is to establish sub-committees to deal with a variety of matters concerning all aspects of life in Northern Ireland: that has been suggested time and again today.

Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGrady: Not now.
We fear that the amendments will distract people from the kernel of the legislation, which is the need to give the negotiators the best possible opportunity of bringing about a successful outcome. We should all strive to do that, rather than create obstacles that might enable a competing body—perhaps in the same building and during the same week, or even the same day—to prevent the negotiating team from engaging in proper debate. That may suggest that we do not want people's views to be heard, but nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said, it would surely be better for representations to be made directly to the negotiators than to be conveyed through the conduit of public debate in a forum.
Our other fear in regard to the forum is the possibility of "majoritarian" decisions. If we have learnt anything in Northern Ireland, it is that nothing can be achieved without consensus. The definition of consensus is fairly well illustrated in paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232, which was quoted earlier. It refers not to majoritarian decisions, but to a consensus among the representatives of the main traditions or communities. That is what consensus means in Northern Ireland, and that is what we must strive for, no matter how difficult it may be.
All the amendments that we have discussed have focused on a strengthening and broadening of the forum's functions and the creation of a non-executive assembly. That is the political objective of the Ulster Unionists, who long ago abandoned the idea of an executive assembly. They are now integrationists rather than devolutionists, and one of their prime aims has been achieved before the negotiations have even begun. We have grave concerns


about the remit of the forum, and the extension of that remit even beyond what is contained in paragraph 3, which we oppose in general terms.

Mr. Canavan: I should like to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 102, 90 and 91 which stand in my name.
When the Government first mentioned a proposal to hold elections as their response to the report of the Mitchell commission, there was widespread concern, particularly among the nationalist community in Northern Ireland, although not confined to it, that those elections might lead to the resurrection of some kind of Stormont Parliament. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) say that that was not the intention of the Unionist proposal for elections. It is certainly not provided for in the Bill, but I think that the hon. Gentleman insinuated that perhaps it was a stepping stone that could lead to some form of Parliament with legislative powers.
The Committee is aware of the detestation of the nationalist community in Northern Ireland for the Stormont Parliament and majority rule under which the winner took all and the minority was discriminated against for decades. I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that the clock must never be turned back to that. The fears that were expressed about the resurrection of some kind of Stormont Parliament were understandable, bearing in mind that the idea for the elections was a response to the Mitchell commission report. But the elections were not Mitchell's idea: it was a Unionist idea that was adopted by the Government and did not have consensus—broad support among the communities in Northern Ireland. Apparently it had support from within only one community.
The Government eventually got the message about nationalist fears and came up with these proposals, through which they seem to be trying to emphasise the few, if any, powers that the elected body will have. Instead of calling it a Parliament, an assembly or even a convention, they are calling it a forum.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the view that this forum should have no legislative or administrative powers had nothing to do with the Government? From day one of the proposals, the view of the pro-Union parties was that such a forum should have no administrative or legislative powers. Not just the Government but the pro-Union parties, my own included, advocated that long before there were any such Government proposals. It is not a creature of their imagination but of the pro-Union people.

Mr. Canavan: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that it has nothing to do with the Government. They have drafted the Bill, which explicitly states that the forum will have no legislative, economic or administrative functions. In statements, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have emphasised that the forum is completely separate from the negotiating body. Clause 3(2) states:
The functions of the forum shall be deliberative only.

That is fair enough. Subsection 3 states:
Accordingly the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions, or any power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned in section 1.
Subsection (3), however, is qualified by subsection (4), which says:
But if, in accordance with any rules of procedure adopted by them, the participants in the negotiations refer any matter to the forum, subsection (3) shall not be taken to prevent the forum from considering that matter.
There is no need for subsection (4). When replying to the debate, will the Secretary of State say why the Government considered it essential to include that subsection?
Amendment No. 102, which I tabled, proposes the deletion of subsection (4) because it seems to give some qualification to the absence of legislative, executive or administrative functions and of powers to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned earlier in the clause. What is the need for such qualification? There is no need and therefore I propose that the subsection be deleted.
If that is not acceptable to the Government, will they consider my alternative: amendments Nos. 90 and 91? Instead of the negotiating body being able to refer any matter to the forum, if there is to be any relationship between that body and the forum, it should be purely consultative rather than involve reference. If one body refers something to another body, I take it that that means that the other body can take decisions on the matter. If I refer something to the Secretary of State, that is more or less passing the decision to him, but if I consult him, that is a different matter. My choice of words—namely, consultation rather than reference—would be preferable if the Secretary of State wants to emphasise the fact that the forum will not have executive decision-making powers.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the possibility of a constitutional package, as it were, being referred to the forum and to the forum being allowed to express a view on such a package before it goes to the people by way of a referendum. That would not be a good idea. It is almost certain that there will be an in-built Unionist majority in the forum. The White Paper says that it will be necessary or at least desirable to have agreement to proposals in both communities. Ultimately, what is important is not whether a new constitutional package has the agreement of this strange body that has been elected by the most bizarre electoral system to come before the House and by probably one of the most bizarre electoral systems in the world. What is far more important than any approval or disapproval by such a body is that any new constitutional package is tested directly by the people by way of referendum both north and south of the border.
No doubt we will come to the wording and timing of referendums, but, at this stage, the Secretary of State should make it clear that the forum will have no veto on any new constitutional proposal, that it will not have any authoritative say on the matter and that, ultimately, if we are true democrats, we should be saying, "Let the people of Ireland
decide."

Mr. Maginnis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to pursue the issue that I endeavoured to raise earlier. It relates to the impression that we gain from listening to the hon. Members for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and


for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that there is something wrong which needs to be remedied about the fact that a substantial majority of the people of Northern Ireland happen to be Unionists.
We are hearing that anything that gives that section of our society which is Unionist the opportunity to deliberate—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report progress.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Question agreed to.

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Maginnis: Mr. Morris, I shall not dare ask what time we stop for breakfast.
I was about to say that if we ask the people of Northern Ireland to elect a forum—the Government are imposing on us a forum comprising 20 more than we expected—if we elect 110 people, it must surely be proper and a matter of courtesy and respect to the people of Northern Ireland who elect that forum to ensure that it has a job to do.

Mr. McGrady: rose—

Mr. Maginnis: I shall give way in a moment.
The point is that we shall take 50 or 60 members of that forum, put them into a room and call them negotiators. They will be called the constructive element. Left behind will be the other 50 or 60 who were elected in exactly the same way but who will be regarded as the destructive element. Yet the negotiators and members of the forum who are left behind will all be members of the same political parties.
The difficulty that we experienced in 1992—a matter that I raised earlier and that I shall not go into in any great detail—was the reluctance on the part of negotiators to deal with substantive issues. They wanted to make demands and they wanted a positive response to those demands, but there were counter-demands from the other side of the table. In fact, there were times when my party was not quite sure what the demands being made by the party of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) really were. We certainly had no idea in the strand 2 element what the demands coming from Dublin were.
All we knew was that the Dublin delegation sitting around the table appeared to be little more than boot boys for the SDLP. When members of that delegation tried to speak or dared to move too far forward, they were quickly hushed by the leader of the SDLP. Eventually, the whole thing began to crumble. Nothing substantive was discussed. Our document to provide a bill of rights was on the table, which would have reassured the nationalist community to whom the hon. Member for South Down

referred. Yet that document—the Secretary of State knows this because he was there—was never picked up, opened or debated.
There would be an opportunity when there was an impasse between two elements at the negotiations, when one side was making a statement and another was making a directly contrary statement and there was no possibility of a resolution, to refer the issue to the forum and ask that an element of that forum sitting in committee take whatever evidence it might deem reasonable from whatever body it deemed reasonable and try to bring forward a factual report that could be reintroduced into the negotiations with a view to moving things forward and giving the two irreconcilable elements something to get their teeth into. As I said earlier, we are talking not only about the people in the forum but about how those who sent them there understand what is going on.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) referred to the Sunningdale agreement. Although many of us would still be unhappy with elements of that agreement, with hindsight we would consider that some of them might have been helpful if they had been more fully understood by the people out in the country. But the people did not understand; they were suspicious because the deal was done behind closed doors.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), it appears that he is seeking a veto for the nationalist community so that under subsection (4) nothing can be referred to the forum. He has demanded that if some party to the negotiations wants to refer a matter to the forum, and the Secretary of State is inclined to agree that the matter could usefully be considered by the forum, it cannot be considered unless there is substantial—I think that that was the term that he used—agreement on both sides of the negotiating table.
That means that those who want to stifle democratic debate are able to veto the movement of anything from the negotiating chamber to the forum. I hope that the Secretary of State is not going to tell us tonight that he will assent to that attitude being adopted in the negotiating chamber, because that in itself will cause the process to crumble through distrust and frustration more quickly than anything else.
I wonder whether the crux of the matter in terms of the difficulties that the Secretary of State and Ministers appear to have is the fact that although the Secretary of State is supposedly answerable to the House, he is inhibited by what is coming out of Dublin as instructions and what emanates from the Anglo-Irish agreement. Is that not the millstone that is around the Secretary of State's neck? He cannot come here tonight a free man who is able to speak openly on behalf of the Government. Rather, he must try to recall what his civil servants have been telling him will please or displease Dublin.
Is it not a reality that we have a de facto joint authority when it comes to decision-making about how we move the real political process forward in Northern Ireland? I believe that it is, and I think that every one of my colleagues believes that it is. I think that there is hardly a Unionist in Northern Ireland who does not believe that that is what inhibits the Secretary of State. That is why we do not have, for example, a straightforward election, as I said on Second Reading, with people electing people who will be answerable to people. Instead, we are asking people to commit themselves narrowly and conclusively


to a political party and trying to create a basis which, I can tell the hon. Member for South Down, is not what my party wanted.
On that point, we need to know tonight whether the Secretary of State and the Government have the freedom to allow the people of Northern Ireland to explore every opportunity that needs to be explored if we are to find a solution—

The Chairman: Order. Not under this amendment.

Mr. Maginnis: Under clause 3(4), there will be—

The Chairman: Order. There are many aspects to the Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his last few remarks. I draw his attention to the fact that we are discussing amendment No. 114 and those grouped with it. I should be grateful if he would return to that.

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to you, Mr. Morris, for assisting me once again. I will leave the Secretary of State to answer the point. Does he have the freedom to allow the electorate of Northern Ireland to have their views properly reflected in the forum? That is the question he must answer.

Mr. Roger Stott: I appreciate that the hour is getting late, so my contribution will be brief. I wonder whether my electorate, who give me a majority of almost 23, 000, are leaning on their snooker cues this evening avidly listening to every word we are saying. I rather doubt it. They are, however, fortunate in having a Member of Parliament who takes some interest in matters in Northern Ireland, even if they do not.
I have listened to almost all the debate so far, and I am convinced that my original view was right, that we should not have started from that point, and that the whole process was absolutely unnecessary. If the Government had had the perspicacity to grapple with the Mitchell committee report when the Prime Minister was first given it, we might not have been debating the Bill this evening.
Alas, as so often happens, that is all water under the bridge, and we are debating a Bill which has been given a Second Reading and therefore has the authority of the House conferred on the principles contained within it. Had it not been a constitutional Bill, it would have been taken in a Standing Committee upstairs, but because it is constitutional it is being taken on the Floor of the House, as is right.
Whether the Bill is being taken on the Floor or in Standing Committee upstairs, however, what we as elected Members are doing, as I so often say both to Conservative Members and to my hon. Friends, is making the law. This evening we are making the law of the United Kingdom, so we had better be pretty clear about what we are doing and what we are legislating for.
10.15 pm
We are legislating to create an assembly, a forum—clause 3, which we are now discussing, refers to that, Mr. Morris—and my problems with the forum are summed up by the following questions. What is it supposed to do? What are its terms

of reference? My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) read out part of clause 3 earlier. Subsection (2) says:
The functions of the forum shall be deliberative only.
Great—that says a lot. What is "deliberative only" supposed to mean? What is the forum supposed to deliberate on? What are its terms of reference? What can it discuss and what can it not discuss? What will be the parameters of those discussions?
Even schedule 2 does not tell us much more about what the functions of the forum are. A forum that will bring people together where they can genuinely, peacefully and intelligently discuss the current problems of Northern Ireland seems like a good idea. But there must be ground rules and parameters. There must be terms of reference defining what the forum is supposed to be about.
Apart from my hon. Friends from the Social Democratic and Labour party, I am probably the only person in the Chamber tonight who was present at, and spoke at, the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin, which was set up by the Dublin Government under Albert Reynolds. I found the terms of reference of that forum, and its deliberations, very useful. It involved people of violently differing views, who none the less came together in Dublin castle under the chairmanship of Judge McGuinness, and had some very positive deliberative sessions.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Londonderry is about producing records of the forum. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the forum for peace and reconciliation arrived at certain conclusions and published its recommendations, although those were not binding on the Irish Government, and certainly not on the British Government.
One of the recommendations was that everybody concerned with the process should sign up to consent. The only people who did not sign up, and who were therefore outwith the nationalist consensus in the island of Ireland, were Sinn Fein. Why cannot we have something like that in the proposed forum's proceedings? If the forum is going to happen—as I have said, I would not have started from there—the terms of reference must be decided. Why should not the Government consider what they should be? I cited the example of the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin because it came to those conclusions. If we are to have a forum, the Minister who replies should be more explicit—again, I stress that we are writing the law—about its terms of reference, its parameters of debate and what it can do. We all know what it cannot do.

The Chairman: On the parameters of the debate, we are discussing amendment No. 114. While the hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, most of it would be more appropriate to the clause stand part debate.

Mr. Stott: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Morris. I was about to conclude. I was in my peroration when you kindly brought me back to order. I was going so well that I thought I would give it a final shot. Everyone has been saying what the forum cannot do. It cannot legislate or have any influence on the negotiating teams; it cannot do this, that or the other. We want to know what it can do.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Over the past half hour, I have listened to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) agonise over how he might explain why the SDLP could support and take part in a non-elected forum in the Irish Republic but would not take part in an elected forum in Northern Ireland. I do not think that he convinced the House that he had a realistic solution to that conundrum. It is clear that he is still struggling with it himself.
I listened to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) build up straw men so that he could knock them down. The idea of having, as part of the process, a forum with legislative, administrative or executive authority, was never in any of our dreams. It was not part of the process that we envisaged. It would not be the sort of process that would be likely to succeed and get the result that all the people of Northern Ireland want.
The process is undoubtedly capable of ending with an agreement that would give Northern Ireland a form of government that would include a legislative, executive and administrative structure, but that would come out of agreement under the process, not from the process itself. If I take anything from what the hon. Member for South Down said, it is that his party—and to this extent I can understand where he is coming from—does not want to concede by way of process what it would not wish to concede as part of the negotiations. If that is his argument, he must remember that Unionists could equally say that there are many parts of the process, taken as a whole, that would have the same effect for them if they believed that, by accepting something as part of the process, they were giving a nod and a wink that it would be acceptable as part of an overall settlement. He should not be nervous about accepting as part of the process something that he may want to improve as part of the settlement as a whole.
Our amendments are not intended to undermine the negotiating process. Not one of them undermines that process. First, they attempt to elicit some information from the Government as to what the forum will do—in the way that the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) was attempting to do. The position is as vague as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The fact that the forum's role is to be "deliberative only" gives no clear sign of whether it will even be able to vote on issues. If it is able only to deliberate, will it be able to resolve any issues? If it has resolved a matter, will it be able to pass on that resolution to others? Is it entitled to produce a report and, if it is, can it hand it on to others, whether the Secretary of State or the negotiating participants? None of that is clear on the basis of the one clause, which gives little information about the forum. Indeed, the clause that deals with the forum tells us what it cannot do as opposed to what it can.
When the Government respond to this group of amendments, can they say whether the forum will be allowed to arrive at decisions and transmit them to others? Will there be any limit on what it can deliberate on and what it can send by way of resolution to the negotiating teams and the Secretary of State?
Today, we received a communication from the Minister with responsibility for the talks process, which gave some indication of the work of the forum. He said that it might meet once in the week. That seems to be a further attempt on the Government's part to diminish its role. Perhaps the Minister can say during this debate whether any limits

will be imposed, other than those set down in the clause, which suggest that, if negotiations are taking place at a plenary level—I assume that that is what he means by it—the Secretary of State will tell the chairman of the forum that it would not be appropriate for it to meet. Other than the limitation imposed by that clause, can the forum choose when to meet? It is important for us to know to what extent the Secretary of State is going to neuter and limit its role in all those matters.
It is in the interests of the negotiators, who will be drawn from the same parties that will be present in the forum, to get work done for them there. The hon. Member for South Down said that there was nothing to stop the good and the wise giving their evidence to the negotiators. I dread to think what will happen if the negotiating teams act as a forum and take evidence of that kind. It would clearly not be appropriate; nor is that a body that has any democratic weight to take such evidence. I trust, therefore, that we will be clear that all the work of taking evidence from the general public—whether from interest groups or others—will be done by the forum.
No hon. Member should be concerned that the forum will have that sole task, because all those in the negotiations are entitled—wearing their forum hats—to be present during that sort of session. I trust that we were not given an indication that the SDLP will confine itself to the work of the negotiating process and not go into the forum—almost obeying what Sinn Fein is requiring. That would be an unwise step. I do not believe that the community that the SDLP represents in Northern Ireland will restrict itself by not giving evidence to the forum in such sessions.
It would be a shame if the SDLP was not part of the forum, just as it was a shame that it boycotted the last assembly, in which we took evidence from groups within the nationalist community which came to assist the work of the assembly. The SDLP could not carry its community with it. I suggest that the very same thing will happen this time round. If the party turns its back on the forum, its community will not do so, but will come and give evidence. The SDLP would do well not to commit itself to a course of action similar to that of Sinn Fein—of boycotting the forum.
10.30 pm
Sinn Fein, from its tactical point of view, would be making a grave mistake if it boycotted the forum, which might be the only place where it will be entitled to go under the legislation. It would not be prohibited from going into the forum and expressing views, but it might be prohibited from entering the negotiating process. Perhaps Sinn Fein is beginning to take account of that and regrets some of the remarks that its spokesmen have been making.
I trust that we shall have a full answer from the Minister when he replies to all the issues that have been raised. It is essential that, at this stage—rather than some time after the election—those who will be part of the forum learn from the Government what they will be elected to. It is not outrageous to suggest that the Government should tell them what they will do after they are elected, particularly if they are to give up their job to go into this worthwhile venture. It is not going over the top to ask the Government to tell them that they might have a particular role during the next year or two.

Mr. Ancram: I think I can say with some feeling that we have had a full and interesting debate on this topic, which has ranged widely over the variety of amendments before us and occasionally, as you have pointed out, Mr. Morris, a little more widely than that. I shall try to remain within the rules of order in replying to the debate, but there may be occasions when, in doing so, I have to be cautious not to go beyond the parameters of the amendments.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked some important questions, but by and large they related to schedule 2, with which we shall deal later. He will see that the times of meetings of the forum will be determined by the members of the forum, subject to one qualification with which I am sure that we shall deal in depth when we come to it. He will also see that schedule 2(3) says that the proceedings of the forum
shall be conducted in accordance with rules of procedure determined by the members of the forum and approved by the Secretary of State.
I am not trying to avoid answering the hon. Gentleman's question—that is a relevant question to ask—but it is right to pursue it in the context of schedule 2, when we shall consider the details of the way in which the forum will work. However, there is no doubt that tonight's debate has been useful to the extent that it has, I hope, made it clear beyond doubt that what the forum is not is a Stormont or a legislative body and that it does not bear resemblance to the forums of the 1970s and 1980s. Indeed, we have gone to great lengths in the Bill to ensure that we have in the statute a number of statements that show firmly that the extent of the capabilities of the forum are rightly limited. Several of those limits have been mentioned tonight and I shall deal with them in my reply.
It is important that we remember that the purpose of the forum, as set out in clause 3, is to promote dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland and that many of the fears that have been expressed would run contrary to that purpose. It is right to examine those fears in the light of the purpose of the clause, which is the promotion of dialogue and understanding by deliberative action only.
It is difficult to reply to a debate of this length in any consistent form, but I shall try to reply to the amendments, and I hope to pick up on the points that were made as I go through. I hope that hon. Members will feel that I reply fully to the debate.
Some two hours ago, we started with the amendment of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—amendment No. 114—which requires that an accurate record of the deliberations of the forum be published and that its recommendations be made available to the negotiating teams and to the Secretary of State. That was a good place to start, because it reminded the Committee that it is the Government's intention that the forum should be a public body and that its work should be widely known. We believe that to be part of its fulfilling its purpose of promoting dialogue and understanding, so it is implicit in the nature of its functions. I do not say this facetiously—the point has been raised in seriousness; the forum is not there to promote dissent and mistrust. We have to look at the ways in which it can promote dialogue and understanding.
Public access to the information that comes out of the forum is, therefore, important. We hope that its work will be widely reported. We hope that constructive

conclusions, which we believe can emerge from it, will be helpful in the climate in which the political process is proceeding.
There is no doubt that, in the nature of things, the work of the forum will be accessible to the negotiating teams, for the reason that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) gave—that the members of the forum will, in part, be part of the negotiating teams. What is available to the members of the forum will, by natural means, be available to the negotiating teams. The Secretary of State also features in the amendment; he will take the closest interest in the work of the forum.
We will have to give thought to the way in which the forum's proceedings should be recorded and disseminated. What is required is a means of publication that is accessible to a broad audience and best calculated to promote further constructive thought. We have considerable sympathy, therefore, with the proposition set out in the amendment, but statutory provision is not required. I believe that, in matters of detail such as this, we should avoid committing ourselves by statutory formulations that may embody unnecessary rigidities. Although I accept the purpose behind the hon. Member's amendment, I cannot recommend that it be approved by the Committee.

Mr. William Ross: If the Minister accepts the purpose of the amendment, how does he intend to fulfil it so that a transcript is available to those involved in the forum and the negotiations, and to members of the general public who have a great interest in these matters?

Mr. Ancram: As I have said, these are matters of detail that will require consideration to establish the best way. At this stage, it is not a good idea to try to set such things in statute or to take a hard and fast position. I hope that I have suggested to the hon. Gentleman that his purpose and mine are alike and that we can work together to consider ways in which this purpose might be fulfilled in practice.

Mr. Bermingham: Select Committees of the House are recorded by reporters and the Chamber and legislative Committees are recorded by Hansard. Should not the same happen to the
forum?

Mr. Ancram: I understand that the hon. Gentleman's amendment is looking for wider and further dissemination of material. I do not know how many people read Hansard, other than hon. Members. This is an area of importance and I think that we should give it due consideration, but it is not a matter that we would want to set down in statute—which is what an amendment to a Bill is intended to do.

Mr. Ross: The Minister says that he does not know how many people read Hansard. He has a lot of civil servants working for him, so it should not be too much of a problem for him to find out.

Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point that I was making. He and I share the view that the deliberations of the forum should get the widest possible
circulation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the forum wanted to have its words recorded, would the Minister oppose it, or say that it could?

Mr. Ancram: I would not oppose it. I want the best way to be found of achieving the purpose that the hon. Member for East Londonderry set out, which appears to be the common purpose in the House. We want to consider that. It is a practical issue, not a matter for statute.

Mr. Robert McCartney: indicated assent.

Mr. Ancram: I see the hon. and learned Member for North Down nodding. I think he accepts that it is a matter that will require consideration.

Mr. McCartney: It is a matter of administrative minutiae.

Mr. Ancram: It is a matter, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, of minutiae—

Mr. Ross: Of important minutiae.

Mr. Ancram: Indeed.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 5, tabled by the hon. Members for North Antrim and for Belfast, East, tie in with amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8, which would add to the forum's functions that of, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East put it on Second Reading, a testing ground for proposals generated in the negotiations. I take it from the remarks that have been made that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues envisage the forum's having a role at a fairly early stage in the process, acting as a filter to assess the likely level of support for emerging propositions. I take it that that would be the purpose of what he set out.
I believe that that is an unnecessary elaboration of the negotiating process. That development of the role of the forum would interfere with what I believe is the helpful work that the forum will be able to do if it sticks to the remit envisaged for it in the Bill. It is unnecessary in practical terms because the participants in the negotiations, being drawn from all parts of the community—indeed, being themselves forum members—will have a clear idea of acceptability, and they will agree nothing that does not have a wide measure of acceptability. Indeed, in his Second Reading speech, the hon. Member for Upper Bann—on 18 April at column 878—graphically made the point that there would be a commonality of view between the negotiators and the forum because the same parties are represented in both. I feel that the over-elaboration that is proposed is unnecessary.
The proposal is also unnecessary as a safeguard because we have made it clear that any proposals emerging from the negotiations must be subject to testing. As I said earlier, the testing is, first, the agreement of the parties in the negotiations, secondly, the agreement in a referendum in Northern Ireland and, thirdly, agreement by this Parliament. The safeguards that were mentioned tonight are already in place and do not need to be extended.

Mr. Robinson: Might the most appropriate way of testing the measure of support for a proposition be to test it in the forum?

Mr. Ancram: It is within the negotiators' capability to

decide that that should be done if they feel that it would be helpful. Several important questions were asked about that issue, and I shall discuss it in due course.
The amendments would be unhelpful in relation to the forum, because we have made it clear from the outset that the forum will be independent of the negotiations and will not interfere in the conduct of the negotiations; that was made explicit in our announcement on 21 March 1996. It would not be helpful, therefore, for the forum to cover the same ground as the negotiations or to keep them under review.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister intend that, as a result of this legislation, any agreement arrived at by the negotiators will be produced like a rabbit from a hat and presented to the people of Northern Ireland in the form of a referendum? Or will there be a mode, other than the forum, of communicating to them in broad terms, before it is presented in the form of a referendum, what the negotiators—presumably after a long period of gestation—have produced?

Mr. Ancram: It is for the negotiators to decide—I shall return to that subject later. If the negotiators feel that it is useful to refer such an overall proposition to the forum, they will be able to do so. The hon. Gentleman's question can be answered only, in a sense, by saying that if the negotiators feel that that aids the process, that is available to them so to do.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister said that the forum should have no power to determine the conduct or course of the negotiations. We have accepted that in our amendment; we are not arguing about that. We say only that the outcome of the negotiations should at least be tested in a forum of all the people of Northern Ireland. What is wrong with that? Is the forum meant to be a mirror of Northern Ireland, or is it not intended to be a representative authority?

Mr. Ancram: The forum may be used in that way if the negotiators so wish. I shall not be pressed into responding to that point before I am ready to do so in dealing with the amendments.
Hon. Members from all parties have made it clear that they agree with the Government that the forum should not have executive, legislative and administrative powers and should not be in a position, as the Bill states, to determine the conduct and the course of the negotiations. I shall come in due course to the question of determining the
outcome.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister understand the concerns of the main Unionist parties in Northern Ireland? They are anxious that, as the negotiations proceed, there should be a sounding of their progress within a forum that reflects public opinion in Northern Ireland.
In such a forum, the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party between them could probably win 50 per cent. of the vote in Northern Ireland. However, the negotiating body is so rigged that only 20 per cent. of those at the negotiating table would represent the DUP and the Ulster Unionist party. Therefore, the negotiating table would not reflect opinion in Northern Ireland in any


democratic sense. That is why we want to have a sounding of public opinion as the negotiations proceed; otherwise, we shall end up with a negotiating conclusion that does not command support throughout Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ancram: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's fears—many fears are expressed to me as I exercise my responsibilities. However, we must explore whether those fears are real. The likelihood of misunderstanding between those who will be involved in negotiations and in the forum is remote. The hon. Member for Upper Bann has said:
If there is agreement in the negotiations, I expect there to be similar agreements in the forum. How could it be otherwise if the same people are in both channels?"—[Official Report, 18 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 878.]
I think that it is reasonable to adopt the view that if parties are involved in both channels, they will not adopt different positions in each. A strange idea has been advanced tonight that somehow parties could negotiate in a vacuum, without reference to the wishes of their supporters or members. All negotiations will be informed by the views of the parties—it was ever thus and it will be ever thus.

Mr. McGrady: The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) raised the point to which the Minister responded by saying that it would be appropriate for the forum to give piecemeal approval to negotiators. First, is that not impractical if negotiations are to continue; and, secondly, is it not in direct contravention of the inter-party agreement of March 1991—to which I understand that all parties still subscribe—which states that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?

Mr. Ancram: I shall not be drawn into another debate. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the ground rules Command Paper, he will see that that principle still applies. However, he will see also that, because of the lessons learned from previous negotiations, it is now possible, subject to that principle, for the negotiations to proceed
on the assumption of contingent agreement on any individual aspect of the negotiations".
That is the basis in the ground rule paper, which is the subject of agreement between the two Governments. In the end, this process—again, I do not want to be driven to make this point early in my remarks—will depend on agreement. It always has and it always will. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's fears are unreal.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister make it clear to the Committee that both Unionist parties have made representations to him and told him that we did not accept that nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed? We also said that we had nothing to do with anything that was done at the other talks because the southern Government brought them to an end. They brought them to an end, not us. We are not tied by anything that was done at the other talks.

Mr. Ancram: I am afraid that I strayed slightly previously and mentioned that paragraph. I am now well away from the amendments with which I should be dealing. If I may, I will answer the hon. Gentleman at another time on that subject.
I have outlined the constructive work that we envisage the forum doing, including exploring a wider range of ideas, drawing on a wider range of contributors and hearing people from the community who do not have an opportunity, in the conventional structure, to put their views, which may contain seeds of worthwhile advance. That is the way in which the forum can make a distinctive contribution. The role envisaged in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim is a long way from that and would mark a diversion that would detract from the rationale of the forum as established by the Bill. I invite the Committee not to approve the amendments.
Amendment No. 113, tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry, would alter clause 3(2) so that the forum might make recommendations to the negotiating teams and the Secretary of State. As I said earlier on a previous amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman, we envisage that the forum's deliberations and conclusions will be publicly available. We hope that the forum sittings will draw in ideas and that the publication of the record of its work will generate fresh ones. But as I have said—it is made absolutely clear in the Bill—we intend that the forum will be independent of the negotiations and will not interfere in their conduct. I cannot accept the amendment and I also recommend opposition to amendment No. 112.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister has told us that the same people will be involved, that everybody will know what is going on and that therefore we will not need publication of the material in any cohesive fashion. He then turned round and told us that we will have two totally separate and different bodies. Did the Minister draw that conjunction of ideas from the relationship that exists between the IRA and Sinn Fein? It seems to me that, if the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked, the forum and the negotiators are equally inextricably linked.

Mr. Ancram: I do not think that I used the words "separate bodies". I said that the functions of the forum and of the negotiators should remain independent, and I believe that is right if they are to succeed.
Amendment No. 29, tabled by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, would excise the last element of clause 3(3) and would remove the reference to the forum having no
power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations".
The hon. Gentleman's argument was that those words were not necessary, because they were already covered. The hon. Gentleman will have heard during the debate that that is a matter of concern, and the words have been included by us to put the matter beyond doubt. It is right, in the interest of those who have expressed that fear, that the words remain. They express beyond doubt the fact, which the hon. Gentleman accepted, that—because of its deliberative function—the forum would not have the power to decide or determine the outcome of the negotiations. It is right that those words are there and make that clear beyond peradventure.
Amendment No. 102 was tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). It would omit the negotiators' power of reference in clause 3(4). I was a little confused by the hon. Gentleman's argument. It is important to realise that the only way in which a reference can be made is at the instigation not of the forum but of the negotiators. I shall come back to that point and explain it in more detail.
The hon. Gentleman said that any consideration arising from any reference should be deliberative. I read his amendment carefully; if he now reads the Bill and notes the restriction preventing the forum's functions from being other than deliberative, he will recognise that that is already the case.
We believe that clause 3(4), which has attracted some comment, is well judged. In the announcement on 21 March, we referred to the possibility of the forum's being commissioned by the negotiators to examine particular questions. I consider that a useful power, permitting the development of a creative approach to problems that would be less likely to arise in the more intense atmosphere of negotiation.
The last part of clause 3(4) is included out of caution. There must be no room for doubt that the negotiators can commission such work, despite the drafting of clause 3(3); but there is no suggestion that the forum will be more than deliberative on such occasions, or that it will be able to determine the negotiations' conduct, course or outcome. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the subsection be omitted is therefore unnecessary.

Mr. Canavan: Subsection (4) states that the negotiators may refer any matter to the forum, but the Minister has said that, even if a matter is referred to the forum, it will not have any decision-making powers. That is a contradiction in terms. As the Bill stands, there is nothing to stop the negotiators referring any matter to the forum, including the content of all or part of the negotiations, and, if that happens, the forum can then make a decision. If that is an incorrect interpretation of subsection (4), would it not be better to replace the word "refer" with the word "consultation" to describe the interaction between the forum and the negotiating body?

Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman's view arises from a misunderstanding. It is for the negotiators to decide what is referred to the forum, and for what purpose. For that reason, if a reference is made, it should not be thought that anything in the Bill—as opposed to the ground rules that will inform the way in which the reference can be made—prevents consideration of a matter referred by the negotiators. The purpose of clause 3(4) is to ensure that that cannot happen.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised the question of the rules of procedure adopted in clause 3(4), which relate to the rules of procedure for the negotiations. Comments were made about that, not least by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Before turning to paragraph 24 of the ground rules, I shall refer the Committee to paragraph 7, which states:
The conduct of the negotiations will be exclusively a matter for those involved in the negotiations. Any reference to, or interaction with, the forum to be convened following the elective process…may take place solely by agreement among the negotiating teams to this effect and only at their formal instigation.
Surely that makes it clear that any reference from the negotiators to the forum, and any consideration in the forum of matters referred to it, will take place with agreement among the negotiating teams and at their formal instigation.
The hon. Gentleman asked, in effect, what agreement amounted to. Like one or two other hon. Members, he referred to paragraph 24 of the Command Paper, which sets

out what the two Governments believe to be the way to seek a sufficiency of consensus. It states that the rules will have to be agreed by the participants in advance of the negotiations. Those rules apply not just to one type of agreement but to agreements throughout the negotiating process. From that, it is clear that the rules that apply in other areas of the negotiating process will also apply to an agreement that could lead to a reference from the negotiations to the forum. As the Command Paper says, that matter must be decided by the participants in the talks in advance of the talks starting. It would be strange if I were to say that I could give a definition of the form of the agreement before it has been discussed by the participants.

11 pm

Mr. McNamara: Paragraph 24 states that the rules will
ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities".
Is "a clear majority" in both communities the underlying principle?

Mr. Ancram: That is the principle that the two Governments have set as the basis for agreement, but it is important to remember that the paragraph states that the matter is for agreement between the participants. Hon. Members have said many times in the debate that the negotiators are the masters of their own procedure. That is the only way in which such negotiations can operate. Therefore, agreement will be reached by the participants before the negotiations start, and that will operate in this area and in others.

Mr. McNamara: I am sorry if I am being obtuse about this matter. The Minister says that the participants must agree on their rules of procedure. The paragraph states that if they cannot "achieve unanimity", or presumably a little less than that, what is agreed will have to be supported by a majority representing each community—that is, a majority of the Unionists and a majority of the nationalists must agree on the rules. Is that right?

Mr. Ancram: That is what the paragraph states, and it also states that any such agreement has to be reached by the parties in advance of the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman must not ask me to pre-empt an essential part of the way in which the negotiating process will operate, which will be by the agreement of the parties.

Mr. Maginnis: Has the Minister allowed himself to be backed into a corner by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) or perhaps, as I suggested earlier, by the Dublin influence? Does he agree that what he has just conceded puts in the hands of those who want to destroy the forum a veto that cannot be overcome?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman was in the last talks. Any process that works by agreement has to have the agreement of those who are in the process. Anybody who disagrees will obviously affect the ability to secure agreement, whether it is on a matter such as the one that we are discussing or on other matters in the negotiations.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. Ancram: I want to clarify this important matter. It strikes me when listening to such debates that each side


is saying that it will be blocked by the other operating a veto. I like to think that both aspects of the process on which we are embarking, the negotiations and the forum, will be taken up by the parties in a constructive and positive manner, first, to try to promote dialogue and understanding and, secondly, to come to an agreement. If the processes are embarked on in that manner, the fears that have been expressed, some of them understandable, will not be realised.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I have a question that flows from what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said. When it is said that a matter has to be agreed by a majority of the Unionist and nationalist negotiating groups in the talks, how do we know who is Unionist and who is nationalist? If No Going Back is at the negotiations, will it be considered Unionist or nationalist? What about Ulster Independence? Will it be considered Unionist or nationalist?

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman has opened an interesting path of discussion, down which I will not be drawn tonight; when suggestions were made that the ground rules should be made part of statute, how those positions might be defined in law was a matter of consideration.
We have made a balanced and constructive proposition in clause 3. Listening to the fears of both sides, I suspect that the balance is more central than I thought. The clause threatens no one. It provides the ability to open a new dimension in terms of promoting dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland. It can give Northern Ireland's people a platform that they have not had in previous negotiations. The clause is right.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that I have not been able to recommend acceptance of any amendments and I hope that the Committee will now be able to proceed.

Ms Mowlam: I shall be brief. Front-Bench Labour Members have waited a number of hours and listened to the debate because we think that this group of amendments is important in relation to how the forum functions. We are keen to ensure that it can stimulate trust and confidence and that it works towards mutual agreement, greater dialogue and understanding. Therefore, many of the amendments have a bearing on that.
During the debate, it has been fascinating to note that, on one side, people are arguing strongly that the forum will develop into an assembly—that is their fear—and that, on the other, there is the opposite view that it will not be strong enough to represent people's views. Both arguments have been fully played out.
In moving amendments, many hon. Members have given voice to our basic concern. Hon. Members on both sides of the House tried to assuage the nationalist fear that the forum would take on powers greater than the ones in the Bill. Many hon. Members tried hard to reassure the nationalist community that that would not happen. The difficulty is that some of the amendments do the opposite. Let me refer to just two specific ones to make the point.
Amendment No. 29, moved by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), clearly retains in clause 3(3) the specific details that the forum

shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions",
defining it by default. The amendment, however, cuts out
any power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations",
stimulating the nationalist community's fears that the relationship between the negotiations and the forum will be strengthened.
Similarly, in speaking to an amendment, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) advanced a persuasive argument about how the forum could be a useful sounding board for ideas discussed in the negotiations, but that would just be a repetitive act: the issues concerned will already have been discussed in the negotiations. We will not go into great detail here, because we are concerned about how the forum's procedures will work; that is covered in schedule 2. We will hold our major point and amendment to the debate on that schedule because that is crucial to how the forum will work.

Mr. Bermingham: I am disappointed that, having made probably my maiden speech on Ireland and raised matters of great concern to me, the Minister had the discourtesy of not giving way when I wanted to ask him merely whether he took on board the concept of an independent chairman. If history has taught me anything, it is this lesson: unless we have independent chairmen—people who are prepared to listen to all sides—no Irish problem is ever solved.

Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister heard that point. In the debate on schedule 2, we will be able to return to it, because the schedule gives us an opportunity to discuss the nature not just of the chairman, but of the procedures. The point can then be re-emphasised.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Has the hon. Lady taken on board the Minister's remark about there being no danger to any of the parties? However, there is a danger to the whole process. Hitherto, we have been dealing with widespread consent throughout the community. Tonight we have heard an interesting and novel idea. To illustrate it using the Parliament in which we are sitting, we should have to have the majority of Conservatives and the majority of Labour Members agreeing to get anything passed. That is the novel suggestion being made tonight. We have to look again at the question of the process, rather than the parties, being endangered.

Ms Mowlam: The process would be in danger if we allowed ourselves to lose the focus from the negotiations, which are, after all, the end product we are trying to reach. It is important that the forum does not engage in the negotiations, but remains independent. In that way, which may not be exactly the way that the hon. Gentleman meant it, there is a danger of the process getting into difficulty if the forum's role is changed considerably.
When we debate schedule 2, some difficult matters need to be dealt with regarding how, in relation to paragraph 24 of the Command Paper, a majority of both communities is translated into the workings of the forum if there are, on the one hand, the two majorities—as the Minister outlined—and, on the other, hon. Members


themselves. There could be a potential conflict which, when we debate schedule 2, I am sure the Minister will cover in more detail.
We believe that the forum should be a deliberative body that encourages an exchange of views and dialogue, which listens to people, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has said repeatedly—

Mr. Peter Robinson: rose—

Ms Mowlam: And as he is about to say again.

Mr. Robinson: I want to deal with a point that the hon. Lady made earlier—that the role of the forum should be to deliberate. I wonder whether the official Opposition, if they were in government, would put any restrictions on what the forum could deliberate.

Ms Mowlam: As the hon. Gentleman will know from reading clause 3, the role of the forum is to discuss
issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland.
That sets the forum's parameters, and I am sure that hon. Members who potentially have the opportunity to be members of it will be able to define what they believe would promote dialogue and understanding.
Some of the amendments may not be very helpful in promoting dialogue and understanding. It is important to build consensus and agreement, not put in place systems that would further entrench and reinforce divisions rather than build agreement.
We will oppose many of the amendments if they are pressed to a Division, because, in the end, they lose sight of the purpose of the elections, which is to move towards participation in the negotiations.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

REFERENDUMS

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 128, in clause 4, page 2, line 12, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 84, in clause 4, page 2, line 13, leave out 'views' and insert 'consent'.
No. 125, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, leave out second 'Northern Ireland' and insert
'the constitutional status of Northern Ireland resulting from these negotiations, or any agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, and the result of any such referendum shall be binding upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.'.
No. 83, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
'(1A) If any outcome of the negotiations provided for in this Act does not receive the support, in a referendum, of a majority of those entitled to vote it shall not be proceeded with.'.
No. 100, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

(1A) The Secretary of State shall consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the wording and timing of any referendum on constitutional proposals affecting the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.'.

Mr. Ross: Amendment No. 128 centres on the use of the word "shall". You will be aware, Dame Janet, of the earlier debate on whether we should use the word "shall" or the word "may". At that time, the Minister seemed to have some objection to "shall". The word appears six times on page 2 of the Bill, most of them in the top quarter of the page, so I do not understand the antipathy towards a simple word that can mean so much. The Minister knows that the use of the word "shall" would strengthen his hand in this context.
The inclusion of the word "shall" would leave the Secretary of State with no option—he could not be pressured to refrain from having a referendum for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I would have thought that that was a very good thing.
There will be those who will say to the Secretary of State, "Oh no, we are very much against a referendum. You really cannot do that." He would have Dublin knocking the door down to try to stop a referendum under certain circumstances. The SDLP, Sinn Fein, the IRA, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and heaven knows who would try to stop a referendum if they thought it suited their purpose, which is of course to ensure that Northern Ireland is taken out of the United Kingdom. Anything that would keep Northern Ireland in would of course he met with objection.
If one reads the amendment in conjunction with the second amendment in the group that I have tabled, No. 125, it is perfectly plain that I am concerned that, every time the constitutional status of Northern Ireland was perceived by the Unionist population to be under threat, there would have to be a referendum before any of the proposed changes could be brought into operation.
11.15 pm
I do not see how on earth the Secretary of State could or should resist the amendments. After all, if such provisions had been in place in 1985, all the concerns expressed by the Unionist population over the agreement of that year could have been very rapidly disposed of by reference to the population, and the Secretary of State would not be in the position he is in today, of having to jump to the demands of Dublin.
The Dublin Government would not have an input into the government of Northern Ireland, and they would not on a daily basis, as Mr. Bruton told us in a recent speech, be in a position to make use of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. A referendum in Northern Ireland would have rapidly disposed of the whole monstrous edifice.
I do not see why the Secretary of State should not agree to my very simple propositions. All I am asking is that, if the people of Northern Ireland believe that a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is resulting from the negotiations, there should be a referendum that would be binding on Her Majesty's Government. In other words, we are asking the Government to put into print what they say will happen—if there is a referendum, they will take note of it. In that context, "take note" means that they will accept the result.
I should have thought that, in those circumstances, the Government should be willing not only to accept the amendments but would leap in exclamations of joy to thank me for tabling them. [Laughter.] I do not know why there is such hilarity on the Labour Front Bench when they say that they accept the Government's point of view. That is what we were told.
If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) does not watch out, his head will fall off. The Labour Front-Bench team have been telling us all evening that they agree totally with the Government on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "New Labour."' New Labour is new in some respects, but certain little rumblings of old Labour are still around. That is a matter for the Labour party; we are not concerned with it. All we are concerned with is gaining the support of the Labour Front-Bench team for the improvements to the Bill that I am proposing. I see no good reason why the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and her hon. Friends should not support me.
We are told that the Government want to ensure that they have the support of the people of Northern Ireland and that they want to keep the United Kingdom intact. They have not shown much sign of supporting those of us who are trying to do so, but that is what they tell us. Here is an opportunity for them to put down a marker for the whole world and say that they are prepared to go along with the will of the people of Northern Ireland when it comes to its constitutional status. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will rapidly rise and agree to accept my modest recommendation.
We in Northern Ireland are very familiar with the Government and the Irish nationalist parties talking about demands for change as if all the changes that have been made in Northern Ireland since 1968–69 have been brought about purely to improve the administration in Northern Ireland, to improve the security of the people of Northern Ireland—with about 3, 000 dead, the policy does not seem to have been all that successful—and to promote dialogue, understanding, consensus, fairness and peace in the Province.
One of the SDLP Members told us earlier that we were divided by history. I thought that we were divided not so much by history as by the question of which nation we wished to belong to—the constitutional issue. I have to say yet again that, in the light of all that has happened so far, my proposal seems a sensible route. The Committee should think of the confidence that my proposal would build in the people of Northern Ireland. They would be aware that, by an Act of Parliament, they would certainly be able to state their opinion of proposed changes. The door would be opened, as the Minister said earlier.

Mr. Trimble: A window of opportunity.

Mr. Ross: A window of opportunity, as my hon. Friend says.
My proposal would protect the constitutional position of the country, which would take a load off the Government's shoulders. They could say to the Americans, the Irish Republic, Europe and any country in the world, "Look, here the people of Northern Ireland have stated their opinion. We have to abide by the principle of democracy in Northern Ireland. We are very happy to accept that opinion."
There is therefore no good reason for the Government not to take my view on board and act on it. The reality is, of course, that the Government have other pressures on them. However, they should show a bit of manhood, stand on their own feet and defend the unity of the kingdom, because we all want to live in the kingdom.
I believe that when the Government consider my brief remarks with the care they deserve, the Minister will hop up to say that he thinks my proposal a wonderful idea. However, Mr. Bruton has not been very helpful in this regard. He is clearly intent on making further changes in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. He said in a recent speech that the Irish Government had been given the right, under the 1985 agreement, to put forward views and proposals. They have been doing that daily ever since. He also said, yet again, that work was needed to get a settlement on the basis of the joint framework document.
Even Ministers and Labour Front-Bench Members understand that that view of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic is not acceptable to the Unionist population of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I wonder whether it is acceptable to a wider community—what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) was fond of describing as the greater number in Northern Ireland. I believe that that greater number, which extends beyond traditional Unionist opinion, would also view with a measure of alarm the possibility of going into an all-Ireland republic. Those people were not all that anxious, therefore, to have the joint framework imposed on them.
I believe that the various proposals we have made to get such agreements put to the people and to stop the Government overriding the desires of the greatest number would be a step forward, and would inspire confidence among the people of Northern Ireland. They would take away the fear, distrust and lack of faith in the Government's good intentions. There would be a remarkable improvement in atmosphere in Northern Ireland, and all sorts of good things could flow from the change I propose.
The truth is, as the Secretary of State knows, that the people of Northern Ireland perceive that endless concessions are being made to the gunmen.
They believe that, instead of ruling according to the desires of the greater number in the population, the Government have accorded far too much influence, to put it no higher than that, to those who have tried hard to effect change by the use of weaponry, explosives and violence, or by suppression, or both, and who claim every concession as a surrender to their policy of violence.
I see that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has rejoined us. I believe that he understands the problems we see, although, sadly, he is one of those who does not believe in the unity of the United Kingdom, because he—

Mr. John D. Taylor: Supports Celtic?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman may support Celtic; I understand that it is a pretty good football team—but I must confess that, if I were a football lover, I might support another team.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: That is the root of the problem.

Mr. Ross: I meant Coleraine; it is in my constituency. [Interruption.] I could not follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) down that road. But I am not a footballer, so the problem does not arise.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is no doubt most interesting and entertaining, but can the hon. Gentleman tell me what it has to do with his amendment?

Mr. Ross: Actually, Dame Janet, I had moved somewhat from my own amendment to discuss amendment No. 100, which the hon. Member for Falkirk, West hopes to move if he catches your eye in a few minutes' time. He demands:
The Secretary of State shall consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the wording and timing of any referendum on constitutional proposals affecting the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
That is an interesting proposition.

Mr. Corbyn: It is a good amendment.

Mr. Ross: It is an interesting proposition, but I do not think it is needed. Surely we are told by Mr. Bruton that, since 1985, the Irish Government have constantly been consulted on a daily basis. Are we to believe that they are not consulted on those issues, and that in the past ten and a half years there has ever been a time when the Government of the Irish Republic have not raised the constitutional position of Northern Ireland?
The proposition by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West is unnecessary. It is redundant, because what the hon. Gentleman wants is already happening, and we are trying to ensure that it stops happening. We want the Secretary of State to consult not only the Unionist population—the greater number in Northern Ireland—but the people of Northern Ireland.
Surely the electorate of Northern Ireland should be allowed to pronounce on such matters. As I have said, if that happened, a burden would be lifted from the Government's shoulders. They are loth to transfer the responsibility for things going wrong on to the shoulders of the Unionists. Perhaps they would find it easier, wiser and more defensible to transfer that burden to the shoulders of the people of Northern Ireland—a burden that that electorate would joyfully accept, because it would mean that they could protect the position that they enjoy within the kingdom.

Mr. Wilshire: I want to speak to the two amendments in my name, Nos. 83 and 84. Amendment No. 83 seeks to make it clear that the Government could not proceed with any decision emerging from talks unless a majority of the people supported it in a referendum within Northern Ireland. That is a variation on amendment No. 125.
Amendment No. 84 seeks to make it clear that the purpose of a referendum is to obtain not simply the views of the people of Northern Ireland but their consent.
11.30 pm
Amendment No. 83 takes up something that we discussed in slightly more general terms earlier—the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Minister kindly made it clear that there would have to be consent from the majority in Northern Ireland.

That has been talked about in the past. Having said that earlier today, I am asking him to put it in writing so that we have in the Bill what we are repeatedly told informally is the case. As my amendment merely confirms what the Government have already said, I assume that they will not find it difficult to accept.
The Government make much of the triple lock. Some of us are not so sure how secure it is, but they tell us that it is vital and that the people of Northern Ireland must agree. The amendment says that if they do not agree, the proposals
shall not be proceeded with".
If the Government are willing to say that, let them do so, but I draw my right hon. Friend the Minister's attention to my amendment's detailed wording. It defines "majority" as being
a majority of those entitled to vote",
not a straightforward majority of those who happen to turn up on a wet Thursday afternoon. There is a precedent for that in other referendums that have been held in the United Kingdom to determine the future relationship of a part of the Union with the whole. The Government should make it clear that they accept that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland means a majority of those entitled to vote doing so.

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend may have glanced at clause 4(6), which we shall debate later. He may not have noticed that it states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the Secretary of State to direct the holding of a poll otherwise than in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 in relation to"—
and this is the important bit—
the matters dealt with in section 1 of that Act.
Section 1 of that Act states:
It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom, and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
It is a strange anomaly that clause 4(1) refers to
obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter relating to Northern Ireland
but that clause 4(6)—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but interventions should be brief, as I have had occasion to say before. If he wants to make such a complicated and lengthy point, he should try to catch my eye to make a separate speech.

Mr. Wilshire: I understand your point, Dame Janet, but I found my hon. Friend's intervention interesting and helpful. I consider myself told off for not reading that part of the 1973 Act as he did. His intervention provides with me with another argument. If my amendments say only what already exists in other legislation, it is sensible for the Government to accept that the Bill should be changed to bring it into line with what he described.
Amendment No. 84 goes beyond simply seeking the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that we should confirm in writing tonight that the purpose of the


exercise is what the Government have repeatedly said informally—that we are seeking consent. Let us put that into writing for the avoidance of all doubt.
So that I do not have to speak again during this short debate, I must assume that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) will speak to amendment No. 100, which suggests that there should be formal consultation with a foreign Government about the internal affairs of the United Kingdom. The decision by a sovereign Parliament to hold a referendum within its territory is a matter for that country alone. To suggest that a foreign Government, be it the Republic of Ireland, Peru, or wherever, should have a formal status in the process of the House deciding to hold a referendum on a particular date and what wording to put to its citizens and to no others is utterly unacceptable. I hope that the House will have no part of the amendment that I suspect will be moved.
I realise that there is an overlap and that the Republic may want to hold its own referendum. There may be some need for an informal chat over a pint of Guinness, or whatever these people do on such occasions. But it would be an impertinence for us to interfere formally in what is decided in Dublin, just as it is an impertinence for them to interfere in the internal matters of this sovereign nation.
Once again, I am pleading with my right hon. and hon. Friends not simply to come up with soothing words when they respond to my points and, having said all those things all over again, to say, "No. We can't accept these amendments either." My right hon. and hon. Friends may find my amendments unnecessary, but that is not the point. I would be grateful to hear—if it can be argued—why my amendments are wrong, not why they might be inconvenient to the Government.
I consider that, by accepting the amendments, the Government will prove beyond all doubt that they are willing to stand by their informal words. They will show that they are willing to help their friends on the Back Benches. I urge them, therefore, to accept the amendments. It is one way of making speedier progress tonight.

Mr. Canavan: My amendment No. 100 would impose on the Secretary of State a statutory obligation to
consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the wording and timing of any referendum on constitutional proposals affecting the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
I emphasise that we are talking not simply of a new internal constitutional arrangement in Northern Ireland, or the relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. My amendment refers to
constitutional proposals affecting the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
It is only fair and democratic, therefore, that that new constitutional package, defining a new relationship between all the peoples of the island of Ireland, should be put to a democratic test throughout the entire island, rather than just one part of it.
My amendment places a statutory obligation on the Government to implement paragraph 26 of the White Paper, Cm 3232, which states:
Both Governments respectively reaffirm their intention that the outcome of negotiations will be submitted for public approval by referendums"—

I always thought that the plural of referendum was referenda, but it says referendums—
in Ireland—North and South—before being submitted to their respective Parliaments for ratification and the earliest possible implementation.
It would make good sense, therefore, for there to be consultation between both Governments, so that they could agree on exactly the same form of wording to be put to their peoples. There may well be some advantage in holding the referenda on the same day. Those could all be matters for consultation.
The Republic of Ireland has a longer history of referenda than we have. I understand that it must hold a referendum if it amends its constitution. Whatever referendum is put to the people of the Republic of Ireland may be one that is required by its constitution, so the wording would perhaps not be exactly the same. The wording of part of the constitutional package may be the same, but if it involves a constitutional amendment in the Republic of Ireland, the British Government obviously would not want to include that in the wording of the referendum put to the people of Northern Ireland. Those matters are all points for consultation. They are important and there is merit in making the wording on the relationship between the peoples of Ireland as similar as possible in the two referenda.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman continually refers to the peoples of Ireland, but of course he will recall that any referendum could well apply to the peoples of these islands. Part of the negotiations will be about the relationship between the peoples of these islands, as paragraph 1 of Command Paper 3232 says. It is not simply the peoples of the island of Ireland. It is the peoples of these islands.

Mr. Canavan: Clause 4 of the Bill refers to
obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter relating to Northern Ireland.
The Bill will have no jurisdiction in the Republic of Ireland, so if we are to put into effect paragraph 26 of the White Paper it makes sense to have statutory consultation between both Governments on the content and timing of the referendum. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that there may well be a case for extending some form of consultative referendum to all the people of the United Kingdom. I know that some hon. Members take that view on constitutional matters, but if one examines the agreements that have been signed recently by both Governments on the right of self-determination and the definition of consent, it is clear that it will be sufficient to confine the democratic test to the entire island of Ireland.
I commend my amendment to the House.

Mr. Cash: I think that I have made my point already, thanks to your indulgence, Dame Janet, in an intervention that I made earlier. There is a potentially serious point here. It is the inconsistency and perhaps even conflict between clause 4(1), which refers to the views of the people of Northern Ireland, and the requirements in clause 4(6), which deal with the question of consent by reference to section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has made an important point in amendment No. 84. I suspect that it would be extremely


undesirable to find that someone attempted to upset the arrangements that have been made in pursuance of those sections if there were an inconsistency—and there clearly is between the words "views" and "consent"—that led them to say that it was ultra vires or in some way out of order.
I simply say to the Minister that this looks to be a point that could be taken on Report. It looks as though my hon. Friend has a serious point with respect to amendment 84. Therefore, this matter ought to be looked at again.

Mr. Corbyn: I put on record my support for amendment No. 100, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). If there is no consultation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the wording, timing and content of the referendum proposals, it is very unlikely that there will be a successful outcome from the peace talks—and we want them to come to a successful conclusion.
I fail to see why there should be any objection to consulting the Government of the Republic when it is obvious that the whole problem with Ireland is the division, the relationship between Britain and the Republic of Ireland and the future of the six counties. Holding a referendum with similar questions—multiple choice questions that include the same options within them on both sides of the border—seems to me to be the best way to bring this to a successful conclusion.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West and said what about a referendum in the rest of the United Kingdom, or perhaps he said that there should not be one in the rest of the United Kingdom. Essentially, the issue has to be resolved by the peoples of Ireland as a whole and that can bring about a permanent peace. If he is serious about a referendum in the whole of the United Kingdom, he might find that the result will be that Britain should not be so involved in Northern Ireland or perhaps not involved at all. I am not so sure that a referendum would bring him the result that he would like to see.
That is not the content of the amendment that has been put down in our names. We are saying that the Secretary of State, before presenting any referendum questions to the people of Northern Ireland, should, as a matter of requirement, talk to the Government of the Republic of Ireland in the hope and expectation that a similarly worded referendum could take place on the other side of the border.

Mr. Illsley: The Opposition would like some clarification of the amendments and of clause 4. We take the view of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) that clause 4(6) prevents the Secretary of State from holding a referendum on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland unless it is in accordance with the Northern Ireland (Constitution) Act 1973. Therefore, we look on the holding of referendums under clause 4 as giving the Secretary of State the opportunity to hold referendums periodically in Northern Ireland on topics other than the issue of constitutional change.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify that and tell us the purpose of clause 4. We look on it not as a clause which authorises a referendum on the constitutional future of

Northern Ireland arising out of those negotiations, but as one which gives the Secretary of State the power to hold a referendum on issues that may arise from time to time—perhaps on the use of violence, as was suggested by the SDLP recently.
We regard some of the amendments that have been moved as unnecessary and others as unworkable. Inserting the word "shall" in the first line of clause 4 would require the Secretary of State to hold referendums from time to time regardless of whether there was an issue on which to hold one. I cannot envisage circumstances in which there would be no issue on which to hold a referendum. Nevertheless, amendment No. 128 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to hold referendums periodically, and we see no need for continually holding referendums.
Obviously, the most important referendum to be held in relation to Northern Ireland would come under the provisions of clause 4(6). The issue is that of obtaining the consent rather than the views of the people of Northern Ireland. The issue of consent brings us back to subsection (6). As we see it, clause 4 is intended for the Secretary of State to obtain the views of the people of Northern Ireland on specific subjects. If the word "consent" is written into clause 4, the Secretary of State will be under a duty to hold referendums in Northern Ireland, each of which is to give consent, and issues may be put to a referendum that do not require the consent of the people of Northern Ireland but simply an expression of their view.
I refer back to the subject raised by the SDLP when it said that perhaps the issue of the use of violence or whatever might be put to a referendum in Northern Ireland. That does not require the issue of consent to be agreed on; it simply means that the people of Northern Ireland can express their view.
The issue of consent in any respect has been laid to rest by both Government and Opposition; both have committed themselves repeatedly to the view that no constitutional change will take place in Northern Ireland unless it is with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland expressed through a referendum. I regard that as being enshrined in the various documents that the Government have produced in the past, and it is not relevant to clause 4.
Worryingly, amendment No. 125 would give a duty or a power to hold referendums on any agreement between the Government and the Irish Republic. I read that to mean that we might hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, and we could be bogged down in holding a referendum on agreements or treaties that have been in position for the past 10 years and whether they are agreed. It will not take the process forward if we begin to look backwards rather than forwards to the negotiations.
Amendment No. 125 would also limit referendums to constitutional issues, which I do not envisage as the remit of clause 4. I hope that the Minister will respond on that point and confirm that clause 4 is simply to obtain expressions of the will of the people of Northern Ireland rather than their consent on major constitutional issues.
We cannot agree with an amendment that would make the results of any referendum binding on the Government. It is a well-known rule of the House that Parliament cannot bind its successors. It would not be right or proper


for the Government to enshrine in legislation here the fact that they would hold referendums to be binding on themselves and any future Government.
Amendment No. 83, tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), also refers to clause 4. He wishes the decision in a referendum to be taken on a majority of those entitled to vote, rather than the majority of those people voting. We cannot agree with the fact that abstentions will be counted as people voting against in any such referendum.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. We are reaching a crucial moment in defining a central part of Labour party policy with reference to what might happen after the next general election. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) draws its inspiration from the legislation of the last Labour Government in the Scotland Act 1978 and the Wales Act 1978. In view of the Labour party's proposal to introduce within its first year in Government legislation regarding devolution in Scotland, is the hon. Gentleman announcing that there will be no referendum along the same lines as provided for by the last Labour Government? It is a crucial issue.

Mr. Illsley: The circumstances in Northern Ireland are unique. A Labour Government would not conduct a referendum along the lines of the previous legislation as suggested by the hon. Gentleman. We do not agree that the decision should be taken on the basis of the majority of people entitled to vote.
As to amendment No. 100 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we tend to agree with earlier comments that perhaps it is not necessary in view of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the on-going consultation between the Irish and the British Governments on Northern Ireland issues. We assume—perhaps the Minister will confirm our view—that the Irish Government will be consulted about the wording of any referendum question on constitutional issues.
I see no reason why the Irish Government should be consulted under clause 4, unless border issues or constitutional matters were involved. Under clause 4—which is not related to constitutional issues or to the outcome of negotiations—there is less need to consult the Irish Government. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point in due course.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In talking about referendums and constitutional issues, we are on very important ground and we must tread carefully. I hope that the Government do not intend to change the firm commitment made by successive Governments—both Labour and Conservative—that Northern Ireland's position as an integral part of the United Kingdom will not be altered except by referendum in which the people have the right to give their verdict. That point must be underscored over and over again.

Mr. Stott: Which people?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The people of Northern Ireland. That is a law of the Parliament as supported by the hon. Gentleman's party
Conditions in Northern Ireland are difficult at present and it ill behoves anyone in this place to say that we wish to undermine Northern Ireland's position as an integral part of the United Kingdom. In so doing, they do a grave disservice to the people of Northern Ireland. I simply reiterate that it is a very serious matter.
The Government of the Irish Republic would resent this place interfering in the constitutional matters that they intended to put to their people. The criminal and immoral articles 2 and 3—behind which the IRA has hidden for years and which the chief court of the south has underscored—must be changed. No British Government would be allowed to interfere in any referendum held by the Irish Government, so no one should interfere in the UK Government's plans for an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The question of referendums and of consent involves the fundamental constitutional position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom. It has been accepted by both the Government and the Opposition as far back as 1972, in the Downing street declaration, in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and more recently, that there would be no change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom without the consent of a majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental principle of consent which has been accepted by the Dublin Government, by the parties of constitutional nationalism and by the forum for peace and reconciliation in Dublin. It has been accepted by all those other than Sinn Fein-IRA and the parties and groups dedicated to attaining political objectives by violent means.
12 midnight
That element of consent must be totally distinguished from the question of receiving the views of the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum about the outcome, in this context, of any package or agreement arrived at by negotiations in the negotiating body that is being organised. The two issues are very distinct, and that should always be borne in mind. As the hon. Member for North Antrim pointed out, it would seriously undermine the whole basis on which any pro-Union party in Northern Ireland would enter any negotiations if there was the slightest suggestion that that guarantee would be interfered with in any way. I speak for myself as an independent, but I am sure that I reflect the views of all pro-Union parties in the House. No one will go into those or any other negotiations against a background of that constitutional guarantee being in any wise called in question.
A distinction must be drawn between the proposals for a referendum before us and the proposals in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. They are two completely different issues. The referendums to which the amendments refer would be, I assume, only about such matters as may evolve from any negotiations. In no manner can they affect the constitutional position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, because if they do that will be the death knell of any prospect of any success whatever emerging from the negotiations that follow the Bill.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the point that I have made that the inconsistency


between clause 4(1) and 4(6) must be resolved? We cannot have a situation in which section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 requires consent but clause 4(1) of the Bill requires merely the expression of views. Must not that be resolved and, therefore, must we not look, as a matter of critical importance and for the very reason the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned—the death knell of the negotiations—look to the Minister to try to resolve that problem?

Mr. McCartney: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman has said, because under the present proposals any party can raise any issue that it wishes. That would entitle Sinn Fein, if it participates, or the SDLP or any other nationalist party to raise the constitutional issue in the course of the negotiations.
Some people think that it should be a precondition for any party entering the negotiations that it should accept that constitutional principle, which has been accepted by everyone else. Indeed, many think that the only reason why that acceptance is not a precondition is that, if it were made a precondition, the only party which does not accept it—Sinn Fein—would not turn up for or participate in the negotiations. Since the Government's fundamental objective is so clearly to have Sinn Fein at the talks, it is necessary to make every conceivable concession to Sinn Fein, including that of the guarantee of the Union. That is why it is not a precondition, and that is why—as the hon. Member for North Antrim, pointed out—it is so important to resolve an anomaly that will otherwise inevitably lead to difficulty.

Mr. Ancram: Until the last few moments of his speech, I thought that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was delivering my reply for me rather well, but I am afraid that in that final part he diverted from it slightly.
Subsection (6) deals with the fears of both the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for North Antrim, making it clear in relation to the constitutional guarantee that nothing in the clause will alter the effect of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.

Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend is digressing from the main point. He refers to schedule 1 to the 1973 Act, but fails to relate his points to the phrase
in relation to the matters dealt with in section 1 of that Act
in clause 4(6). Those matters necessarily include the notion of consent.

Mr. Ancram: I shall come to that. It is an important point.
Let me repeat that the constitutional guarantee is protected under subsection (6). That is why it is there.
Speaking to amendment No. 100, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West began to undermine his own argument about the language that he wanted to be replicated in the two referendums, realising that the purpose of the referendums might be somewhat different. I am not sure whether he was present earlier, when we discussed referendums; if he was, he will have heard me make it clear that they are two separate referendums in two

separate jurisdictions, and that—for the very reasons that he gave in relation to the Irish constitution—their specific purposes could well be different.
A process that will involve consultation in the reaching of agreement between a series of parties—including the two Governments—will obviously involve some consultation about the purpose of the two referendums, but I see no point in putting that in statute any more than I see any point in putting in statute the need for me to consult the hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for North Antrim—although I would certainly feel the need to consult them on an essential matter such as this.

Mr. Canavan: The Minister says that he and the Secretary of State are committed to continuing consultations, but they may not be in power when the referendum is held.

Mr. Ancram: I am interested to learn that other parties may not believe in consultation, given that we are discussing the reaching of agreement through negotiations. Negotiations tend to require consultation between those who are holding them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows of another means of negotiating which I have yet to discover; no doubt he will enlighten me one day.
I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). If his purpose was to protect the situation spelt out in section 1 of the 1973 Act, however, the amendment is unnecessary: that matter is covered in subsection (6). The 1973 Act states:
in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be a part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent"—
I stress the word consent—
of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1".
The protection is firmly there and, as the hon. and learned Member for North Down pointed out, it is not just there in the Act; it has been accepted in many different forms, such as the Downing street declaration and the forum in Dublin. Consent is an essential part of that protection, and it is underwritten. Far from protecting, the amendment might become unduly restrictive because it refers to any agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and that of the Irish Republic.
Although the amendment may be intended to cover matters such as the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, the variation in agreements between the two Governments can be considerable. Some of them have nothing to do with Northern Ireland, and it would obviously be wrong—and certainly not the intention—to make agreements between the two Governments which have nothing to do with Northern Ireland subject to a referendum in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: The present legislation is merely permissive—the word "may" is used. I was trying to make it binding on the Government to hold a referendum if concern was being expressed in Northern Ireland. The Minister is correct in terms of the words on the amendment paper, but in the light of his expanded


remarks I would be perfectly happy to table another amendment on Report to allay the concerns that he has expressed.

Mr. Ancram: I must develop my reply further. By tabling his amendment, the hon. Gentleman is saying that
The Secretary of State shall, from time to time by order direct the holding of a referendum for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter relating to Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman is making that mandatory without explaining its purpose and in what circumstances he expects the measure to be applied. I sympathise with many of his arguments, but his amendment is not only flawed but unnecessary. I suspect that his main concern is to ensure that the constitutional guarantee is protected, and I can give him that firm assurance.
I shall now deal with the amendments that were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, to whom I listened carefully. The word "views" is used in clause 4 (1) because, while a referendum under the clause might be held to assess agreement or consent, and that would be set out in the question, a referendum might be held on a matter that was not suitable for such a response. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) suggested a question that might be part of a referendum to be held simultaneously with the election. In declaratory questions, consent would not be an issue, whereas the views of the people of Northern Ireland would. Where agreement or consent is required, that has to be made clear in the question, and the form of the question would ensure that consent was a factor.
I listened to my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne and for Stafford (Mr. Cash). None of us is trying to avoid the question of consent because we have made it clear that any outcome of negotiations can proceed only if it has the consent of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. If a question were framed in relation to the outcome of negotiations, it would have to cover that point or it would not match the firm commitment that has been given many times.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made much of the amendment's request that the referendum should receive the support of the majority of people who are entitled to vote. In the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford rightly drew our attention, "consent" is the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll. It would be strange if a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland could be secured by a majority of those voting in a poll when a higher threshold would be required for the implementation of any agreed outcome of negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said that we should be consistent. I take his words seriously, and I suggest that, in the context of the 1973 Act and the Bill, consistency is important.

Mr. Cash: I am glad that my right hon. Friend says that there should be consistency and that that is important. All I am saying is that it would be important also to have a period of reflection between now and Report to make certain that there is no inconsistency. Clearly, there are two conflicting provisions—one in the 1973 Act and the other in the Bill—with respect to the point that I have made already. If that is so, and it turned out that the

Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was not authorised to make the order in the terms prescribed under the Bill, that would cause considerable disquiet. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend simply to give an assurance that, between now and Report, he will consider the matter and, furthermore, if necessary, table an amendment on Report.

Mr. Ancram: I certainly give an undertaking that I shall consider the matter, but, in the light of what I said, I would not expect to find that inconsistency.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Why does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the requirement to have a simple majority as the view or consent of the people of Northern Ireland as expressed in a referendum and the much higher requirement for a majority in both communities for propositions in the Command Paper?

Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman realises that the referendum is there to test the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland. We have been through that in some detail. It is part of the triple lock. We have talked about the way in which agreement is come to in negotiations, which is obviously a different matter, but it is important that, in terms of the two pieces of legislation, the proportion of voting required is consistent. On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way before he finally sits down. He has raised an important point about amendment No. 83 and I accept the contradiction between the two pieces of legislation. He has not, however, dealt with the spirit of amendment No. 83, if it did not have that defective point about a majority of people entitled to vote. Is he willing to reflect on the spirit of my amendment to find out whether he can find a form of words that will write in the respect for the consent of the majority, however he tries to define it, either before Report or when the Bill is before another place, in which case it may be possible to make progress?

Mr. Ancram: Again, I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said, but in moving in that direction, there is an inevitable restriction of what referendums can be used for in this context. That must be taken into account, especially in the light of the fact that representations have been made that there may be occasions when referendums would be a useful way of assessing people's views rather than necessarily always having to seek consent on a particular issue. Given what I have said, I hope that he will withdraw his amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
'(a) setting out the wording of the question to be put;'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 126, in page 2, line 21, leave out
'as to the persons entitled to vote'
and insert,


'that the persons entitled to vote shall be those on the current register of electors for parliamentary elections.'.
No. 86, in page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (4).

Mr. Trimble: This is a simple amendment and a simple issue. I hope that we will have a straightforward answer. The amendment would require that the order that is to be made under clause 4 with regard to the conduct of the referendum contains the wording of the question that is to be put in the referendum. The order must be approved by a resolution of the House—an excellent provision: it is right that, before a referendum takes place, there should be parliamentary approval.
It would be improper for the House to be asked to approve any referendum when it is not aware of the wording that is to be put to the electorate.
There is an interesting analogy with polls under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Schedule 1 of that Act, which is referred to in clause 4(6), sets out the statutory form of wording. It is not a matter of an order made under the Act; it is set out in primary legislation. It is therefore not asking too much to ensure that we have the exact wording in the secondary legislation providing for the referendum.

Mr. Cash: I shall ask one simple question. Is there the slightest possibility in the mind of the Secretary of State or of any Ministers that a referendum held under clause 4(6) could deal with questions relating to the treaty on European union? It is clear that the intention is to confine the provision to Northern Ireland, but clause 4(1) states that a referendum can be held to obtain the views on
any matter relating to Northern Ireland.
Furthermore, having read schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, it seems that it is just possible that a referendum dealing with questions relating to the treaty on European union could be held at the same time or separately.
I want it on the record that I have raised this issue but, most emphatically, that the possibility of a referendum relating to the treaty on European union being held under this provision is ruled out.

Mr. Canavan: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 86, which is a probing amendment. It would delete subsection (4) of clause 4. Subsection (4) states:
Where an order under subsection (1) applies an enactment which empowers a person or body to make any provision or to do anything it may modify that enactment by substituting the Secretary of State for that person or body.
What on earth is the point of giving a person or a body the powers to do something presumably concerned with the organisation of a referendum but, at the same time, saying that the Secretary of State may act instead of that person or body and take over the powers of that body or person? What are the circumstances in which the Secretary of State envisages giving powers for the holding of a referendum to a person or body but then taking them back and using them himself?

Mr. William Ross: Amendment No. 126, which stands in my name, is merely a probing amendment. Later in the Bill, the Government state that people on the local election register will be eligible to vote, whereas I suggest in the amendment that the Government should use the

parliamentary register. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why the Government have chosen one register rather than another. We should be aware that, in Northern Ireland, there is considerable interest in who votes in a particular election, and the reason why the Government have chosen the parliamentary register will be of great interest to many people.
I wholly support amendment No. 31, which demands the setting out of the question to be put in a referendum. Over the years we have become familiar with how words can be twisted and how questions can be construed in different ways because of the ambiguous language that is used. I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand that, in such an important matter, absolute precision of language is needed so that folk are under no illusions about what they are voting for and so that there is no doubt in their minds as to the question that they are being asked. The Government should accept this simple and straightforward amendment because it is central to the whole referendum question. If it is not accepted, there will be grave suspicion that, somewhere along the line, someone will try to use vague, woolly wording, which would be totally unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, especially those on this Bench.

Mr. Dowd: We may get through this batch of amendments in record time, certainly compared with the proceedings heretofore.
I know that on Second Reading the Minister went through the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has just made. He quoted the figures involved and the differences between the registers. The Secretary of State also addressed the point in his Second Reading speech. We understood the numbers, but I do not think that we elucidated precisely the reason for the preference. If the Secretary of State reiterated it now, I am sure that it would allay the qualms of the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
To reiterate the query raised my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), under clause 4(4) it looks as if the Secretary of State can assume powers from other individuals. We would like to know in what circumstances that would take effect and to what purpose.
On amendment No. 31, the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about the wording of any referendum that may be held is extremely valid. The notable referendums on the border in 1971 and the European Community in 1975 were introduced through primary legislation and went through the normal processes in the House. The opportunity was therefore given to hon. Members to amend the question therein. Under subsection (4), not only would the question to be put be implemented by secondary legislation, under which, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann says, Members would not have the chance to reconsider or amend the wording, but there would not even be an opportunity to know what the question was.
If an order were laid before the House that maintained that a referendum would be held but the question was not set out in it, would it be laid before the question had been decided or would it be passed and the question decided subsequently? Under either of those two permutations, what process of consultation would the Government undertake in attempting to determine the precise wording of the referendum question?
The hon. Member for East Londonderry said that words are important. They clearly are. The answer to referendums across the world—we are not that used to them here in the United Kingdom—has often been almost totally determined by the question asked. The question of the words to be put on any ballot paper is critical.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall first deal with amendment No. 31. The question that I have been asked is simply whether the order will contain the words of the question. The answer is yes, it should do. I am advised that under the existing wording in the Bill it would be so required, but in case there is any doubt, I am very happy to accept the amendment. So that is that out of the way. I am glad that the hon. Member for Upper Bann was sitting comfortably.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must have shaken the hon. Gentleman. I am coming to his amendment; I cannot do quite the same in respect of him. On amendment No. 126, I can understand the hon. Gentleman's case that there is no real need for the Secretary of State to have discretion in the area and that it would be as well to put the issue beyond doubt on the face of the Bill. However, the provision is common. Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 also confers such a discretion on the Secretary of State in respect of border polls.
The House of Commons would have the opportunity to vote down any order under clause 4(2) that applied any improper franchise for any referendum. The hon. Member for East Londonderry asked why a selection was made of the parliamentary franchise. We went into this on Second Reading. There is a very slight difference—about 70—in the number of electors. The difference is accounted for by the fact that the parliamentary franchise includes 79 registered overseas voters, but excludes nine peers resident in Northern Ireland, which seems rather a pity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?] Exactly. Why?
In principle, it might be thought more appropriate for the franchise for any referendum to reflect the potential implications for local residents. On that basis, the local government register rather than the parliamentary franchise would be more appropriate, which perhaps illustrates the value of leaving the issue to be dealt with by order rather than on the face of the Bill.
I can also accept amendment No. 86, tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. Subsection (4) was put in as a safety net, but as the drafting of the elections order has proceeded, it has become clear that it is unnecessary. I do not wish to prolong matters at this stage of the evening. Two out of three is not bad.

Mr. Cash: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be good enough—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Is the Secretary of State giving way?

Mr. Cash: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have accepted amendments Nos. 31 and 86.

Mr. Cash: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be kind enough to address the point—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Secretary of State has not given way.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: If I may have the indulgence of the Committee, I shall answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). My hon. Friend asked whether clause 4 would enable the Secretary of State to hold a referendum on any matter, including a single currency or any matter connected to the European Union. The strict answer to that is yes, as drafted, it would. It would have to be said that such a matter would be a matter relating to Northern Ireland. However, the power is time limited, expiring in May 1999, and the power to direct a referendum rests with the Secretary of State. I am in no position to give any binding undertaking, but I can give a very firm expectation that a referendum, if any, connected with any European matter would be introduced on a United Kingdom basis and not on a Northern Ireland-only basis.

Mr. Canavan: I thank the Secretary of State for accepting my amendment. I hope that it is a portent of things to come.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Canavan.]

Mr. Dowd: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (5).
That was one of the most productive 15 minutes since we began our consideration of the Bill. I shall be brief. The elections—

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Dowd: I did not think that I would be quite that brief.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman inspired me by his remarks about being productive. It may help him to know that, although there is nothing untoward about subsection (5), it is clear from the Second Reading debate that there is a broad and possibly sufficient consensus ranged against it. I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Dowd: I am completely fazed, Sir Geoffrey; one does not even have to work for a living in this place any more. However, I am delighted that our previous rate of progress is being continued, and I accept the Minister's assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

"NOMINATING REPRESENTATIVE" OF A PARTY

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 141, in page 2, line 39, leave out from 'person' to end of line 41 and insert
'whom that party in Northern Ireland itself determines to be its leader.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 92, in page 2, line 39, leave out from 'who' to end of line 41 and insert
'is nominated as such by that party'.
No. 82, in page 2, line 39, at end insert 'chairman or'.
No. 9, in page 2, line 40, after 'party', insert 'in Northern Ireland'.
No. 80, in page 2, line 40, after 'party', insert
'in Northern Ireland or in an individual Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency'.
No. 123, in page 2, line 40, after 'party', insert
'in Northern Ireland in cases where the party has its Headquarters elsewhere in the United Kingdom'.
No. 33, in page 2, line 40, leave out from 'party' to end of line 41.
No. 81, in page 2, line 40, after 'person', insert
'in Northern Ireland or in an individual Northern Ireland parliamentary constituency. '.

Mr. Robinson: Two of the amendments in the group stand in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and myself. The intention of amendment No. 141 is clear. The Secretary of State, for some reason so far unknown to us, believes that he has a better knowledge and capacity to determine the leadership of political parties in Northern Ireland, and no doubt beyond, than the membership of the parties themselves.
I can think of nothing more absurd than the Secretary of State in the full exercise of the powers that he seeks for himself in the clause, determining that the leader of a political party should be someone other than the leader that the party itself has chosen. Yet under the clause the Secretary of State will be able so to determine.
Can anybody imagine the difficulties that would be presented if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to exercise that power? I think that the temptation should be taken from him, and that instead we should have within the clause the sensible provision that the party itself should be able to determine who its leader should be at any given time.
Also in connection with the amendment, we should recall the fact that some of the parties that contest the elections in Northern Ireland may not be parties exclusive to Northern Ireland. Some of them may be parties that range over the whole of the United Kingdom, and some may be parties that range over the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State therefore determine who should be designated the leader of parties whose main leadership lies in the Republic of Ireland? If so, should not their leader in Northern Ireland be

determined for the purposes of the Bill to be the person properly to exercise the functions of the leader, or "nominating representative"?
I do not want to tread on the Secretary of State's toes, but the provision is there for a specific purpose; it has to do with some local difficulties in the Conservative party. Clearly the Secretary of State is concerned that a "native view" of the Conservative party could be represented by the people who would be elected in Northern Ireland by one means or another—by the constituency lists or through the rigged regional lists—and that those people might present themselves to the negotiating process and put a view that was not in line with the view of Ministers. Indeed, theirs might be a view contrary to that of Ministers—and that might be no bad thing.
Clearly the Secretary of State wants to be able to step in at that stage and say, "Look, you boys can't come. The person I am designating as the 'nominating representative' of the Tory participants in the talks will be the chairman of the Tory party. Although you have been elected to take part in the process, he may determine not to nominate any of you."
Indeed, outside the Chamber the threat has already been made that, although people may win a place in the election in Northern Ireland, they will be barred by the chairman of the Tory party from taking their places in the negotiating process.
That would lead to the absurdity of the Conservative party being represented at the talks by people who had not been elected by the people of Northern Ireland—indeed, I suggest, by people who could not get elected by the people of Northern Ireland—while those who had been so elected were kept outside the door. I am sure that the House would not want to do something so undemocratic.
By this route, the Secretary of State is attempting to overcome problems in his party; but in doing so, he is creating several other problems. Will Proinsias de Rossa, as the leader of one of the other parties, be a nominating representative? Will a Dublin Minister make nominations for parties that would be elected in Northern Ireland and decide whether they come to the negotiating process? Are they to have double representation in the negotiating process? Both the Government and one of the partners in Government in the Irish Republic could be represented twice—locally in Northern Ireland, and through their Government as part of the large team that they wish to bring to the negotiating process.
The basic principle for democrats is that they should accept the democratic decision of political parties as to who their leaders should be. If the Secretary of State interferes with that, it will cause great anger in Northern Ireland, and not only in the party that would be affected by it. I therefore trust that he will, on reflection, recognise that the problems that would be caused by this provision, which is designed to overcome some of his own difficulties, mean that it would be better left out. He has accepted amendments from almost every body of opinion except my party, and this may be an opportunity for him to accept one of ours.

Mr. Trimble: I agree with the principle that underlies the amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast, East because it also underlies amendment No. 33, which I have tabled. I disagree with him about the detail, but the important thing is the principle. Both


amendments attack the attempt in clause 5(1) to reserve to the Secretary of State a power to disregard the leader of any of the political parties in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East is right about the origin of the provision. It has been put in because of the structural difficulties that the Secretary of State's party has in Northern Ireland. His local difficulties with the Conservative party cannot justify giving him a discretionary power to select, in effect, who will be the leader of other parties. Other parties have their own procedures for electing leaders, and there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to accept the people who they have elected as their leaders. It is improper for him to give himself a discretionary power to disregard the leadership of a party and select someone else as the nominating representative. He must accept one of the amendments to remove that discretion.
The only question is about the manner in which it should be done. Amendment No. 33 would oblige the Secretary of State to accept as the nominating representative the leader of the party concerned. That means that the Conservatives in Northern Ireland would have to rest content with their party's method of identifying their party leader, who would, of course, be the Prime Minister. I see no reason why he, as the leader of the Conservative party, should not act in the same way as other party leaders.
That is a detail. The detail is one thing; the principle is a matter of considerable importance. It is improper for the Secretary of State to take unto himself a sweeping power that is potentially disruptive of the internal order of all political parties in Northern Ireland. It must be withdrawn.

Mr. Wilshire: I was touched by the concern for my party's welfare shown by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—so much so that he might care to consider joining my party: his moderating influence within it would be useful to us.
12.45 am
In the past hour, it has become deeply fashionable for my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench to leap up and say, "We'll accept it." I have three amendments in this group, and I have carefully drafted a two-hour speech. To get to bed early, I will willingly give way if a Minister wants to leap to his feet and say that he will accept them. Perhaps he will not, so I shall explain that amendment No. 80 defines the word "party" in the Bill as meaning that part of the party that is in Northern Ireland or one of the individual constituencies. Amendment No. 81 defines "leader" in this context as the leader of the party in Northern Ireland or in one of its individual constituencies. Amendment No. 82 clarifies the fact that "leader" does not necessarily mean what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said. Here it has a small "1", and it could be the chairman or the leader, rather than a specific office holder.
Amendment No. 80 is the key, as far as I am concerned. It makes it clear that it is the party—whichever party—in Northern Ireland that does the nominating. I need to explain why I consider the amendment necessary.
As I read the suggestion, my party is once again having a little local difficulty with the way in which it goes about its affairs in Northern Ireland. There has been a continuing disagreement between the party hierarchy and the grass

roots. The party is finding it difficult to decide whether we should fight the elections and, if we should, to sort out who should select the candidates.
Of course we should fight those elections. A political party exists in a country to fight elections. Northern Ireland is part of my country, and we exist to fight elections in that part of it as well as everywhere else. The fact that people might not vote for us is another matter, but it is up to the people to decide, not the party hierarchy.
The justification is that, as a Conservative party, we have decided, for better or worse, to organise in Northern Ireland. It is our right and privilege, and if other people choose not to do so, that is their privilege. On the back of that decision, we have agreed to accept subscriptions from individual citizens living in Northern Ireland to join our party. When I first came into the Conservative party, I was always taught that we owed it to our members to allow them to stand up and be counted if that was what they wanted to do.
We owe it to the people where we organise to give them the privilege of voting for us or rejecting us, once we are an organised party in that area. If that is so—I believe it to be—as I have always maintained, one of the things that we hold particularly dear within the party is that it is a cardinal principle that each constituency association selects its own candidates. I cannot speak for any other party, but all of us on the Conservative Benches owe it to our constituency to decide that it is us and not another Conservative whose name appears on the ballot paper. That principle should be followed in this case.
The Government have chosen to say that the elections will be run in individual constituencies. For me, that shows where the final responsibility for the decision to put forward candidates lies, and who those candidates shall be.
My amendment No. 81 takes that argument one step further. Another difficulty which has been touched on is that, even if local people can decide to fight the elections and are able to select their own candidates, the Bill still says that the leader nominates the negotiating team. The hon. Member for Upper Bann put his finger on the problem exactly. The Bill says that someone on the mainland, not in Northern Ireland, will be the person who puts forward Conservative names for the negotiations. In my judgment, that loophole has to be closed.
Amendment No. 81 says that the person who puts forward the names is the chairman or the leader of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland, if there is such a person, or, if there is not, the leader or chairman in the individual Conservative associations.
There is another loophole, which was touched on a moment ago. It is possible to put forward names from people living on the mainland, not in Northern Ireland. Although it is not in this group, I have tabled another amendment which says that a person cannot be nominated to take part in the negotiations if he or she lives on the mainland. That, I hope, will deal with that loophole.
Amendment No. 82 is technical: it says that a chairman or a leader can do the nominating. My own party prefers to have chairmen within local parties rather than leaders.
Amendment No. 141 says that Northern Ireland elects its own local leader. I agree. I would happily support that amendment instead of my own, if it was necessary. Amendment No. 92 says that the party shall decide who


puts forward names, not the Secretary of State. If I have watched events clearly over time, I have noticed that the Secretary of State gets himself into all sorts of difficulties, tangles and troubles with matters with which he properly has to deal. So why should he be so keen to take on something which is guaranteed to cause even more aggravation—determining who is the leader of a party, when by far the safest way is to spare himself that aggravation by leaving it to the party itself to decide who its leader or chairman is?
The way in which we can put the matters that I have raised to rest is for my right hon. and learned Friend to answer three questions. All he needs to do is to say yes to each one. Can he confirm that the Conservative party will be fighting the elections in Northern Ireland? Can he confirm that the Conservative parties in Northern Ireland will choose their candidates? Can he confirm that the Conservatives in Northern Ireland will nominate their own negotiators for the talks that will follow? All that my right hon. and learned Friend has to do is say yes, and we can all go home.

Mr. Canavan: Unity is breaking out all round. I agreed with almost everything that was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, East when he moved amendment No. 141, and with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. My amendment No. 92 would make clause 5(1) read:
In this Act 'nominating representative' in relation to a party means the person who is nominated as such by that party.
My understanding of the Bill is that the nominating representative does not have to be an elected delegate. The Secretary of State would have discretionary power over who was to be the nominating representative.
The nominating representative has the important function of, in effect, choosing the party's team of negotiators. In the interests of democracy and decentralised democracy, the parties in Northern Ireland should decide who their nominating representatives and their negotiators are. In this instance, the amendment of the hon. Member for Belfast, East is better worded than mine. Therefore, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment in the interests of his amendment.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: The most reassuring and succinct way in which I can begin my reply to this short debate is to say that there is absolutely no funny business involved in the wording of the provision under discussion. I think that the amendments stem from a misunderstanding of what the provision says and what it intends to achieve.
The Bill does not allow the Secretary of State to decide the leader of a party. Under the Bill, he has to make a sensible judgment—which he will do in consultation with the party concerned, because that is the whole point—as to who is the leader; that is, who has been chosen by the party through its procedures, or, because some parties do not like to have leaders and make a point of not having leaders, who is the most appropriate person to act for the party.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall expand on my point and then give way to the hon. Member.
Because we foresaw in the circumstances of Northern Ireland that we might be confronted by assertions that this was to discriminate against a party that did not have a leader, and made a point of not having a leader, which might lead to all sorts of unnecessary complications, in drafting the Bill we sought to approach this point in what I believe to be a sensible way that would enable the Secretary of State to make a choice that is no more than a means to an end.
The Secretary of State will get lists, which can be validated, of negotiating teams from the delegates. There may be perfectly good reasons why a party might want to say, for example, "In making your choice, Secretary of State, please take account of the fact that we want our general secretary to be our nominated representative." We have consulted in this regard, and some parties suggested names that were not their leaders. Some parties may take exception to the concept that they should have a leader. This Bill does not force them to do so, but the amendment would. That is what it is all about.

Mr. Corbyn: The Secretary of State seems to me to be making heavy weather of a ridiculous power that he has taken on himself. Why does he want to get involved in who should be the leader or the representative of a political party? Obviously, if they choose one person and he decides to choose someone else, the person he chooses will have no credibility either within his own party or within any other party. Why does the Secretary of State want to get involved in all of this?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not wish to get involved in who is the leader of a political party—I want to get involved in who shall be a validating nominator for the purposes of the Bill. I want to be able to select someone, to invite someone, who will be able to do the job with credibility. I am very happy when a party says, "We have a chairman or a leader, and we wish them to undertake these functions." Naturally, I am very happy to say, "Of course, that is the person I shall invite."
As I sought to explain, it is where a party has no leader that I wish to be able, within the wording of the Bill, to choose someone who would be the appropriate person to act on behalf of the party for purposes of its own. If it is of any reassurance, I am happy to repeat that that is the sole purpose of the provision.

Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way again?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think my hon. Friend got in first.

Mr. Wilshire: I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend said. He has advanced an argument to say why one should not specify "leader", and certainly why one should not accept my amendment to specify "chairman". He has advanced no argument to say why one should not invite a party to specify someone. Will he therefore tell us that he is prepared to table an amendment on Report or in another place that simply says that a person in the party shall put forward the names, and leave it to the party to


describe who that person is? Surely that clears up his worry and does not land him with the difficulties of trying to make choices for independent parties.

1 am

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I doubt that that is necessary, because we are dealing with a party and, under the scheme of the Bill, we wish the party to identify to the Secretary of State someone who shall be invited as its nominating representative to perform the functions for which the Bill provides. It is for the party to be consulted on these matters, and I give an undertaking that in every instance I shall consult the party. That is the sole purpose of the wording.
I understand why these points are being taken, but I very much hope that, in the light of that explanation and of my undertaking, hon. Members will be reassured.

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I give way to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Corbyn: I am sorry to tell the Secretary of State that I am not in the least bit reassured. He is taking unto himself the sort of powers that Stalin had to decide who was regional secretary of the Communist party of the Soviet Union in whatever republic he happened to remember it was. There are plenty of similar examples throughout the world.
It is nonsense. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and me says that the party shall nominate a representative. It does not say leader; it says representative. If the amendment is all to do with the Conservative party, why does not the Secretary of State table his own amendment, saying that he shall nominate the leader of the Conservative party, but all other parties may nominate their own leader?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: Tremendous speculation and a great deal of amusement derive from references to the Conservative party in this. I do not want, at this hour of the night, to delay the Committee by repeating what lies behind the wording.
If I may take up the points—

Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: No; I am just about to deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said.
Amendment No. 82, which my hon. Friend tabled, would define "nominating representative" for the purpose of the Bill as the person who appeared to the Secretary of State
to be the chairman or leader of the party or otherwise"—
to be
the most appropriate person".
I believe that that is an attempt to provide a basis in the Bill for the designation of a specific person in connection

with the Conservative party. That is not germane to the reasoning behind the wording.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne asked for three questions to be answered. I shall not recite them. I say only that, under the wording of the Bill, the Conservative party is entitled to stand in these elections. The answers to those questions are the responsibility of those other than myself, and I cannot take the answers to those questions any further.

Mr. Wilshire: I understand my right hon. and learned Friend's reluctance, but, as we know that the Conservative party in Northern Ireland wants to fight, to choose its own candidates and to put forward its own names, surely my right hon. and learned Friend can tell us whether that will happen. Surely there are lines of communication with others in the Government who can answer this; I gave notice some days ago that I intended to ask these questions.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: My hon. Friend has lines of communication with everyone in our party—that is one of the great strengths of our party—and I advise him to use them. I am unable to take the answers to those questions further.

Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: No; I wish to get on.

Mr. Wilshire: I was asked to raise these questions with my right hon. and learned Friend.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I shall respond to the points arising from my hon. Friend's amendments before I give way again.

Mr. Corbyn: He is only trying to communicate with you.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: He is managing it extremely well, and very frequently.
I think that the intended purpose of amendments Nos. 80 and 81 is to ensure that someone recognised as the party leader or other appropriate person in Northern Ireland shall be the nominating representative. However, mention of an individual parliamentary constituency involved is an added complication, which would make the election and subsequent naming of teams for negotiations unworkable within the scheme of the legislation.
In light of my comments, and realising the limitations that—poor vessel that I am—I labour under when dealing with his questions, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendments. I end as I began, by saying that there is no funny business involved: the Bill is worded as it is in order to avoid a quite unnecessary complication.

Mr. Wilshire: My right hon. and learned Friend protests again that I am causing him unnecessary grief. I did as he urged, and put my questions to far more appropriate people. Interestingly, they advised me to speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have done that, and I have been pointed in a different direction.


If my right hon. and learned Friend cannot or will not answer my simple questions, would he care to have a stab at telling me whom I should ask?

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I did not realise that I had given way, but evidently I did. The matters do not lie within my field of responsibility. I am always ready and willing to take on new responsibilities in addition to my own, but no one has vested them in me at present.

Mr. William Ross: We have heard some very interesting exchanges while debating this group of amendments. I have tabled a small amendment, No. 123, and I had concluded that the drafting is pretty sloppy, as it is clearly incomplete. I am now convinced of that as one of my manuscript amendments which I suspect would have completed the process has gone astray. Therefore, my amendment must be treated as a probing amendment as it is only part of a whole. In light of the Secretary of State's comments, I think that we are entitled to probe a little further.
For instance, during the to-ing and fro-ing with his hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), the Secretary of State said that he had consulted the parties in Northern Ireland. However, in relation to the Conservatives, he did not make clear whether he had consulted the Northern Ireland branch of the Conservative party, its headquarters in Smith square, the Prime Minister or the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney). The people of Northern Ireland are very interested in that issue and I feel sure that the Secretary of State will want to make clear whom he consulted in relation to the Conservative party in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he consulted his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office. We would like to clear up that point.
Although it pains me to do so, I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann who said that the leader of the Conservative party—in other words, the Prime Minister—should deal with the problems of that party in Northern Ireland. Earlier this evening when responding to my other amendments, the Secretary of State gave good reasons why the local franchise should apply. If the local franchise applies, the local branches of the party, rather than the national headquarters, should be consulted when necessary. It is plain from the remarks made by members of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland that they are at variance with party headquarters as to the party's Northern Ireland policy.
I am sure that since the Secretary of State is in favour of free speech and the rights of people to put forward an alternative policy, and since the alternative policy on Northern Ireland in the Conservative party is based largely with the members of the party in Northern Ireland, it is but fair and right that those members should be allowed to run on their version of Conservative policy rather than Smith square's version. That is only fair and reasonable, and there is no good reason why the Secretary of State should not say that those members are free, not only to stand for election but to put forward the solution that they, as residents and citizens of Northern Ireland, believe to be right for the Province and the people living there. Since that is so, I cannot understand why the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) involves himself in the matter at all.
The Tory party is, of course, a very broad church and it is nearly as broad as the Unionist party. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) may laugh, but the Labour party is becoming quite broad as well. If I may say so, the hon. Member for Spelthorne has tabled some neat amendments and he made a powerful and clear speech. His arguments were very clear, and the Government should follow the excellent advice contained in his remarks, which flowed naturally from the amendments. That would allow the people in the

Conservative party in Northern Ireland to pass judgment on whether the policy pursued by the party should be that which emanates from the Secretary of State, Smith square and the Prime Minister or that which is set forth by the party in Northern Ireland. That could make the difference whether the Conservative party is represented through being elected in Northern Ireland. If the party went forward with the policies of Smith square, it is unlikely that it would be elected. We do not have that much against the Conservatives and we wish them well, especially in the United Kingdom as a whole at times, but perhaps they should expand into Northern Ireland by adopting policies that are acceptable to the people who live there.
The general thrust of the amendments is fairly clear. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, because that would be a reasonable course of action.

Mr. Peter Robinson: When a Cabinet Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and attempts to assure the House that no funny business is going on, the alarm bells start ringing. The Secretary of State
doth protest too much, methinks".
When one considers the wording of clause 5, it is impossible to conceive that any competent draftsman, when tasked with the apologia that the Secretary of State offered to the House, would have produced this result.
It is clear that if the Secretary of State simply wanted to take care of the situation in which a political party may not want its nominating representative to be its leader, he could have worded the clause so that the political party itself would determine its nominating representative. Instead of doing that, he will give himself the power to determine who is the leader or other appropriate person. That does not seem to be the route that any draftsman would have used to secure the end result that the Secretary of State has now told us he wants. I believe that the Secretary of State has plucked a fig leaf to try to cover his nakedness in relation to his problems with the local Conservatives. Nothing that he has said has convinced me that clause 5 should not be amended in the way that has been suggested.
I am willing to give way if the Secretary of State will give an undertaking to reconsider the matter, take into account the views that have been expressed from both sides of the House and deal with the matter on Report. In the absence of such an undertaking, we will take the opportunity to divide the House.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in clause 5, page 2, line 43, after 'Gazette', insert
'and the Northern Ireland regional press'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 120, in clause 5, page 2, line 44, leave out 'an initial' and insert 'a'.
No. 119, in clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 1 and 2.

Mr. Ross: The amendments are simple and straightforward, and I have no doubt that the Minister will feel able to accept them.
Here we have the word "shall" again. Clause 5(2) provides that the Secretary of State "shall", not "may", cause the information to be published.
Although it is an admirable publication, I do not think that The Belfast Gazette is widely read in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Ulster Gazette and Armagh Standard is more widely read.

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend is plugging another paper, but I have no interest in it. I have never seen the blooming thing: it is in the wrong part of the country. As for The Belfast Gazette, it does not appear on as many tables as the Belfast Telegraph, the Irish News or the Belfast News Letter.
I am merely asking the Secretary of State to make the information available to the widest possible circle of people in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he would be kind enough to tell us the circulation of The Belfast Gazette, its print run and how many people read it. If he does that, and then gives us the sale figures for the Irish News, the Belfast Telegraph and the Belfast News Letter, we shall have some idea of the number of households that receive those papers, and it will be clear that the information should be published far more widely. Those who might well object to the nomination of a spokesman for their party would then be able to read what is proposed in the press, and make their objections known.
As for amendment No 120, I feel that the concept of an initial list means saying to the parties, "You can present a name, but we shall not necessarily stick to it. We could go for someone else next week, who might want a different list." Surely, if there are to be no hiccups on the way to the elections, it would be better to accept the amendment and have a fixed list of nominating representatives. If the Government cannot get a simple matter like that right at this stage, they have little chance of getting anything else right as we develop the talks process through the forum and negotiations. Surely, if the Government really want speedy progress, they will accept the amendment.
My third point relates to the two lines at the top of page 3, which refer to
notice of any change in the nominating representative of any of those parties.
If the Minister accepts the second amendment, amendment No. 119 will follow naturally because there would be no need for the power. I have done a much neater job on these amendments than I did on the last lot. The Secretary of State should accept these, simple, straightforward tidying-up amendments and hasten the process leading to the election and negotiations.

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend has delegated me to respond to the amendments. I am a little surprised at their tenor because the hon. Member for East Londonderry has been chastising us for some time for undemocratic methods in the electoral process that we have proposed. We have successfully refuted those charges, but the hon. Gentleman suggests a process that

is at least questionable because his amendment would require us to force our will on a free press. We would obviously resist that. He would require us to publish in newspapers that have to decide whether to publish advertisements or material, and they are not at the command of the Government. The amendment suggests that they are.
The hon. Gentleman fears that no one reads the Belfast Gazette. I am fairly certain, as I suspect is the hon. Gentleman, that the regional press in Northern Ireland will get copies and will reproduce the lists because they will have considerable news value. But that would be their choice: we could not make them publish anything.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister can cause them to be published in the Northern Ireland regional press if he takes advertisements. None of the newspapers will refuse an advertisement.

Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Member for Strangford is nodding sagely at that. A free press is entitled to make its own decisions, but the hon. Gentleman suggests that the Government should require newspapers to act irrespective of their views. It would create a risk of challenge to the whole process if someone thought that we had got it wrong. We intend to put all the necessary information in the public domain. In practical terms, the amendment is unnecessary.
In the light of our last debate, I do not think that the hon. Member for East Londonderry realises the effect of his subsidiary amendment. The point of referring to an initial list for publication of changes is to allow the Secretary of State to respond to a party's democratic wishes. For example, it would be ridiculous to have a nominating representative who no longer enjoyed the confidence of his or her party or who might have been voted out of office but could not be changed by the Act because of the amendment.
The amendment would place an undesirable block in the Bill. I am certain that the block is not intentional, given what the hon. Gentleman said about the other amendments. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. William Ross: Somewhat unwillingly, because the Minister has only to write to the parties and ask them who their nominating representatives should be, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

ALLOWANCES AND SECRETARY OF STATE'S EXPENSES

Mr. McGrady: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 3, line 5, after 'otherwise', insert
'and may provide other assistance for the negotiating teams'.
The amendment is not earth shaking and I shall not dwell on whether a word should be "may" or "shall". I leave that to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Clause 6 (1) gives the Secretary of State power, permissive rather than mandatory,
to pay allowances to delegates returned in accordance with Schedule 1, whether by reference to days on which they attend the forum or participate in negotiations or otherwise.
The amendment simply extends the "otherwise" to suggest that the Bill should
provide other assistance for negotiating teams".
It is a simple matter. The amendment enlarges the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's ability to provide, where necessary and appropriate, some support for the parties, especially the smaller parties, in relation to secretarial back-up, research facilities or other matters that would enable them better to fulfil their function at the negotiating table. It is no more than that. It allows the Secretary of State to consider any problems in the matter and to have, therefore, provision in the Bill to extend additional aid or assistance.

Sir Patrick Mayhew: I can deal with this matter promptly and, I think, shortly and satisfactorily. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) has made a valid point that, to ensure an effective negotiation, negotiating teams must be properly supported. We acknowledge that and are keen to make whatever financial arrangements are reasonably necessary to enable that to happen.
We propose to pay allowances to delegates for attendance at either the forum or for the purpose of the negotiations and to pay travel and subsistence allowances, including for support staff and research grants. We have asked for comments on what would be an appropriate level of research grant to make available to the parties.
That would all be in line with the payments made to the parties in the previous talks in 1991 and 1992. Additionally, however—I think that this is of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman—in response to representations, we are considering whether it would be appropriate to make payments to parties participating in the negotiations to help to defray the cost of additional support staff and to meet the expenses of people who may, under paragraph 11 of the ground rules, support their party's negotiators without themselves being elected delegates. We will also consider what other practical assistance might be feasible.
Such allowances and payments would be in line with what the hon. Gentleman has in mind in his amendment. He can be reassured that our thinking is already on the right lines. It will be informed as it develops by what he has said. In the light of that, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. McGrady: In view of what the Secretary of State has said—that the ambit and purpose of the amendment are covered—I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

DURATION OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 3, line 9, leave out 'Section 3' and insert 'this Act'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendment: No. 135, in page 3, line 10, leave out 'Section 3' and insert 'this Act'.
No. 124, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'or'.
No. 39, in page 3, leave out line 12.
No. 38, in page 3, line 13, leave out '1998' and insert '1999'.
No. 35, in page 3, line 13, after 'order', insert
'but only if such provisions have the support of a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232'.
No. 133, in page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
No. 131, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'section 3' and insert 'this Act'.
No. 130, in page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Ross: This is a fairly interesting group of amendments in that it tries to tidy up the legislation to some extent. Instead of dealing just with "section 3", we should be dealing with "this Act" because, as soon as a job that has been set up under the Act is completed—or fails, as the case may be, although we certainly hope that it will be completed successfully—the Act will cease to have any force and should not be left cluttering up the statute book. At that stage, it should disappear.
The amendment is simple and straightforward and I should be grateful if the Secretary of State will give a clear and detailed explanation as to why we should not go down that route. My hon. Friends will deal with the other amendments. The aim of my amendments is plain and I hope that the Secretary of State will accept them, or at least give me a clear explanation as to why he cannot.

Mr. Trimble: I want to comment on the amendments that I tabled. They deal with two particular issues, but unfortunately amendment No. 36 has been separated from amendments Nos. 39 and 38. Amendment No. 36 has been selected for debate in the next group whereas, in terms of drafting, amendments Nos. 39, 38 and 36 all hang together. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
1.30 am
Amendments Nos. 39, 38 and 36 endeavour to deal with two inconsistencies. The first clear inconsistency relates to dates. Clause 7(5) states:
Section 4 shall cease to have effect at the end of May 1999",
whereas the last possible operation of clause 3 is May 1998. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry, I think that the whole Act should hang together and operate on the same lifespan. We should not be dropping some parts of it before others. There needs to be consistency in the dates.
Amendment No. 38 seeks to replace "1998" with "1999", but I would be content if the Secretary of State preferred it the other way around and limited the date in clause 7(5) to 1998. I see no particular reason why we should envisage a three-year process—two years is quite sufficient—but there must be consistency, which I hope the Secretary of State will provide in his answer. That consistency should apply to the entire Act, and one part should not be separated from another.
Other amendments were directed to the coming into force again of the legislation. My concern is that the way in which clause 7(2) is drafted may mean that if, for some reason, clause 3 ceases to have effect before May 1997,


it would not be possible to revive it until after May 1997. Clause 7(2) is drafted in a way that limits it. In the rather unlikely event of clause 3 ceasing to have effect before May 1997 under the discretion provided in clause 7(3), amendment No. 36 would provide an unfettered discretion to bring clause 3 back into force.
My two aims are, first, to get the dates rationalised and, secondly, to ensure that the power to revive clause 3 is always available to the Secretary of State and that he does not find himself unable to revive it before 1997.

Mr. McGrady: I shall speak to amendment No. 35, which relates to section 7(2). Subsection (2) gives power to the Secretary of State to continue the forum beyond May 1997 or, it having lapsed, to bring it back into force. Amendment No. 35 provides that such action can be taken by the Secretary of State only if it has
the support of a clear majority of members of parties representing respectively the nationalist and unionist communities as defined in accordance with paragraph 24 of Command Paper 3232.
Obviously, we are anxious that the principle of consensus be applied to the continuation or the reinvigoration, as it were, of the forum. That consensus is essential for the good order of business. The matter should not be left solely to the personal judgment of the Secretary of State. Those two important and potentially far-reaching powers should at least have the consent of the majorities of the two groups of parties that will be participating in the forum. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to accept the amendment as a reasonable expression of the democratic right of that body to exercise, as it were, its own existence.

Mr. Ancram: This group of amendments is complicated. The hon. Members for East Londonderry and for Upper Bann have done a valuable service in explaining their intentions so clearly and highlighting the main features of the amendments, which are fairly difficult to understand. I shall take the points one by one.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry argued that in his view it was inappropriate for clause 7 to focus exclusively on clause 3 and that, effectively, if I understood his argument, the whole exercise—the forum and the negotiations—should stand or fall together. In fact, the amendments would fail to achieve the effect that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Clauses 1 and 2 deal only with the elections and the entry to negotiations, so they will, in effect, become spent provisions—if I may use that expression—at a very early stage.
Thus, the only effects of amendments Nos. 118, 135 and 131 would be to provide that, if the Secretary of State needed to terminate the forum, he would also terminate the power to hold referendums under clause 4—a power which, earlier, the hon. Gentleman wanted to be made a permanent feature of the statute book, but which would be removed by these amendments—and to bring to an end the Secretary of State's power to pay allowances to delegates in respect of participation in the negotiations.
The negotiations might not last much longer if allowances were not paid, but that might not be the strict intention of the hon. Member for East Londonderry in moving the amendment. In practice, however, it is clear that his objectives have already been met. The life of the

forum and the negotiations will be closely bound together. The forum will continue in existence while the negotiations continue.
I can assure the hon. Members for East Londonderry and for Upper Bann that there is no intention that the Secretary of State should use the power in subsection (3) to bring the forum to a close while allowing negotiations to continue. Regardless of the Government's views on the matter, I imagine that certain parties which are represented in the House and which are likely to be represented in the forum and the negotiations would be bound to protest vigorously and effectively if such an attempt were ever made. In practice, therefore, it is not a danger. Given those points and reassurances, I hope that the hon. Members will not press amendments Nos. 118, 135, 124, 39, 133 and 131.
I also listened with interest to the arguments for extending the maximum life of the forum by a further year to May 1999. The Government are not persuaded that that would be sensible or appropriate. May 1999 refers to the referendum clause, which in practice we all appreciate may have an effect and may require to have an effect after the negotiating process has ceased. It is for that reason that the extra time is allowed.
We believe it right at this stage to set a realistic deadline for the completion of the process. If agreement is not reached within a maximum of two years, it would be necessary to question the utility and value of keeping the process in being. If the participants were on the brink of a settlement at the cut-off date, I am sure that the House would, if necessary, look favourably on extending the life of the process. I do not think that we would be justified in creating an expectation at this stage that the process could not be completed by May 1998 at the latest. Again, I ask the Committee not to support the amendments, but I hope that they will not be pressed.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised a concern that I think is covered by the proposed legislation. Clause 7(2) gives the Secretary of State power to revive the forum at any time before May 1998. That should satisfy his concern. He has raised it with me before, and I have said to him on a previous occasion that that was certainly my understanding of the construction of the clause.
The hon. Member for South Down referred to amendment No. 35. In his statement to the House of Commons on 21 March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that the life of the forum would be time limited to 12 months, renewable up to a maximum of a further 12 months. He also stated that the forum would not continue in existence if the negotiations were no longer in process. The clause expresses that policy position.
Subsection (2)(a) empowers my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to extend the life of the forum from its initial expiry date at the end of May 1997 up to a maximum period to the end of May 1998. Subsection (2)(b) enables him to revive the forum up to the maximum period if it has already ceased to exist at the end of May 1997 or if an earlier extension order has expired. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that while negotiations continue, the forum also continues.
If the negotiations end, the forum also ends. For example, clause 7(3) requires the Secretary of State to terminate the forum earlier than the date in an extension order made under clause 7(2) if it appears to him that the


negotiations are concluded or suspended. I hope that that in terms satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I hope, again, that on that basis he will not press his amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'or suspended'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 19, at end insert—
'4(A) If Section 3 ceases to have effect at any time before May 1999, the Secretary of State may by order provide that it shall come into force again.'.

Mr. Trimble: I do not propose to associate amendment No. 37 with amendment No. 36, because it is quite different. I am speaking solely to amendment No. 37 which would remove from clause 7(4) the words "or suspended". It is merely a tidying-up provision which achieves the object that the Government have in mind in a much more effective way.
Under clause 7(4), there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide that section 3 shall cease to have effect; in other words, there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to wind up the forum. Under the clause, he "shall" make such an order. Subsection (3), however, gives him discretion to wind up the forum. Looking at the two possibilities mentioned in subsection (4)—that the negotiations are concluded or that they are suspended—I believe that one should draw a distinction between the two.
The negotiations may be suspended. That suspension could be for a short period, with an expectation that the negotiations were about to be resumed, or it could be more serious. It would be appropriate, as the term "suspension" can cover a range of possibilities, for the Secretary of State to exercise discretion in respect of a suspension rather then being under a duty to wind up the forum. There is a distinction to be drawn between the negotiations being concluded, in which case it might be reasonable for the Secretary of State to be under a duty, and a suspension covering a range of situations, in which case the exercise of discretion would be more appropriate.
My proposal achieves the object the Government have in mind by giving them discretion in the matter. They can then decide matters in the light of the circumstances that obtain rather than being under a duty.

Mr. Ancram: I have listened with care to the comments the hon. Member for Upper Bann. Although he is right in saying that the provision could apply in a separate and different scenario, I am not certain that the point of principle to which he refers has not already been covered. It is the Government's view that if the negotiations are not taking place, for whatever reason, including a suspension, the forum should not continue during that period. My understanding was that the hon. Gentleman's original concern was that, following the end of such a suspension, for whatever reason that suspension

had taken place, the forum would not be capable of being revived. I had hoped that I had satisfied him on that point in my remarks on amendment No. 118.

Mr. Trimble: What happens if there is an adjournment for a week or two, for some reason?

Mr. Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend would have to be satisfied that there had been a suspension, and obviously an adjournment is not a suspension in those terms. Subsection (4) makes it clear that it would have to appear to the Secretary of State that the negotiations were suspended. He would have to take such factors into account in reaching a view. Having come to a view, if he regarded the interruption as an adjournment rather than a suspension, or vice versa, he would base his decision on that judgment.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that what is important is the fact that there is the ability to ensure that the forum and the negotiations are run at the same time, but that neither runs without the other. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Trimble: In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not wish to push the matter further. In the light of the clear undertaking that the two will run together, and that no attempt will be made to use the provision to separate the forum from the negotiations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 1

SPECIAL REGISTRATION DRIVE

'The Secretary of State shall take such measures as he sees fit to maximise the number of people entitled to vote under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to this Act by means of a special registration drive before the electoral roll is finalised.'.—[Ms Mowlam.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Mowlam: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 79, in page 4, line 28, leave out from 'who' to end of line 33 and insert
'would be entitled to vote at a General Election.'.

Ms Mowlam: The new clause stands not only in my name but in that of the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith), who cannot be with us at this time. Its subject—increasing the rate of voter registration—has been close to both our hearts since the days when we both taught at the university of Newcastle.
The particular problem in Northern Ireland that we hope that the new clause addresses is the low registration rate, especially the rate among young people, which is lower there than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We want to support and encourage higher participation in the coming election, just as in any other.
Is it possible for the Secretary of State to take any steps now to allow registration for those who have not yet prepared themselves for the election? If not—it seems from our discussions with the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland that it is not—we are bound to ask why no action on the issue has been taken before now.

Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Lady understand the measure of surprise caused not only in my party but among the SDLP Members by her allegation about a low level of registration in Northern Ireland? It is my understanding from the chief electoral officer that the quality, standard and rate of registration in Northern Ireland is far higher than in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
That is because of the methods used to ensure that the maximum number of people are on the electoral register there. The chief electoral officer takes great care each year to employ many registration officers and to ensure that the household forms are collected. He also takes care to use the various opportunities under the law to apply for a vote if someone has been missed. There are opportunities to object to names that appear wrongly on the list.
In my own household, one of my sons was left off the register this year, despite the fact that he had formerly had an entry under the household, and I had to attend the registration court myself to have his name placed on the list.
Not only does the chief electoral officer take care to have an accurate register but individuals in Northern Ireland take an interest in the matter. The political parties, too, take a keen interest, and I am astonished—I am sure that this astonishment is shared beyond my party—that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) should have made such an allegation. In any case, citizens and parties can examine the electoral register and place names on it. I suspect that it is too late to do that for the election on 30 May, but people have known that it has been coming for a considerable time. I am sure that parties, or the individuals concerned, have looked into the cases of people who were missed.

Ms Mowlam: The amendment is no reflection on the work of the chief electoral officer in Northern Ireland. That office informed us that voter registration in certain parts of Northern Ireland among young first-time voters was very low, and we wanted every effort to be made to allow the people whose future much of this debate is about have the maximum chance to have their voices heard.

Mr. Ancram: I applaud the spirit in which the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) moved new clause 1, because I know the purpose behind it. Equally, I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry. The hon. Lady will be delighted to know that Northern Ireland's electoral registration is the highest in the United Kingdom, routinely running in excess of 90 per cent., according to the chief electoral officer's statistics. That is probably due to postal canvassers collecting registrations from households, but the CEO is also empowered by law to apply a process of continuous registration.
Anyone who wishes to be on the electoral register in Northern Ireland must be resident there for three months from 16 June until the registration date of 15 September.
The draft register is published around 20 November so that claims and objections can be made. The final register is published by 15 February. Throughout that time, additional names may be added.
Every year, the CEO prepares a timetable for the next 12 months that shows the cut-off date each month for the receipt of claims and the later date scheduled for hearing claims. The CEO provides the political parties with copies of that timetable and the continuous process of claim and hearings is widely used. That facility, coupled with the Northern Ireland parties' awareness of the forthcoming election—and, I suspect, the public's awareness of it—renders a special registration drive unnecessary.

Mr. Peter Robinson: What is the last permissible day for registration for the 30 May election?

Mr. Ancram: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman offhand, but if I get the chance, I will try to let him know tomorrow.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I generally agree with the Minister about the registration rate, but at least one person in my constituency was told that he could not be on the register because he was not living there on 28 September. Surely that was wrong in the light of the information that the right hon. Gentleman has given?

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps I could look into that matter. I have been told that the last date for registration was in mid-April, so it has passed.

Ms Mowlam: In view of the reassurances given by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Canvey Island

Dr. Robert Spink: Canvey Island has suffered from chronic overdevelopment for many years. I have consistently fought against the local council and the developers who threaten and spoil our environment. Mr. Blake, Eileen Gough and many others have collected 1, 500 signatures for a petition to fight off the latest threat. The petition states:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the residents of Canvey Island and the surrounding area,
Sheweth
That we, the undersigned, are deeply concerned by the overdevelopment of Canvey Island and, in particular, by the proposed inappropriate development of land around Thorney Bay Road and East and West of Craven Avenue, Canvey Island. We call on the Councillors of Castle Point Borough Council to resolve to make an immediate application to the Secretary of State for the Environment for the extant 1951 planning permission relating to the said land to be revoked forthwith. That, in any event, the original planned density of housing for the said land should be considered a
maximum for any future development on any part of the said land and that the total number of houses built on the whole of the site, will not exceed the total number of units approved in the original 1951 permission.
Wherefore your petitioners pray, that your Honourable House do urge the Right Honourable John Gummer MP, Secretary of State for the Environment, to use his powers to revoke the 1951 planning permission and to restrict further house building on the said site.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Hospital Services (Thanet)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Even at this late hour, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of hospital services in Thanet. Unlike most Adjournment debates, the purpose of tonight's debate is not to air a grievance, complaint or criticism, or even to cajole the Government into righting some wrong or remedying some defect.
Instead, my purpose is simply to express appreciation and gratitude for a great national health service achievement in Thanet and to pay tribute to the doctors, nurses, managers, staff and others who have played their part in bringing that achievement to fulfilment. Their combined efforts have made a dream come true for the people and patients of Thanet in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who I am delighted to see in his place and who is hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The dream come true that I am talking about is the opening of the new Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Thanet. It happened only a few days ago, when the first patients moved into its dazzling new facilities, which consist of a £20 million investment in state-of-the art medical technology and the new wards, operating theatres and buildings that go with it. With the medical and managerial innovations that I shall describe, the new hospital complex marks the beginning of a new era in high-quality hospital care for Thanet.
For more than 25 years, Thanet has been campaigning for its own properly equipped and resourced district general hospital. The campaign has been a long and, at times, arduous struggle, sometimes against forces of obstruction within our own NHS district and region.
Thanks in no small measure to the long-term tenacity of the local campaigners and to the more recent success of the Government's NHS reforms, the new Thanet Healthcare NHS trust has been able to match the local vision with an appropriate allocation of more than £20 million of nationally funded resources. The result is the finest hospital in east Kent and one of the finest in the United Kingdom.
The Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital has no fewer than eight operating theatres on site, four of them high-tech theatres, including two laminar flow rooms for orthopaedics. Those new facilities will give the patients of Thanet the lowest waiting list time for operations in the South Thames region and some of the best post-operative care.
One of the most notable features of the new hospital, to which I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under—Secretary of State for Health, is the critical care floor. It is a specialist complex consisting of four theatres, an intensive care unit, a cardiac care unit and a high-dependence unit, all in close proximity on the same floor and managed as a single medical unit.
I am told that the facilities on that floor are matched by only one other hospital in Britain—Addenbrookes in Cambridge. We are proud in Thanet to be one of the pioneers of that relatively new hospital concept.
However good the facilities of any hospital may be, they ultimately depend on the skills of the men and women who work in them. In that respect, we are highly fortunate in Thanet because our new hospital, under the enlightened clinical leadership of its medical director, Brian Cocking, has a first-class team of 40 consultants and nearly 500 trained nursing staff. The collegiate spirit of the hospital showed itself to excellent effect the weekend before last, when almost everyone on the staff worked round the clock to move patients into the new complex from the older wards and from the venerable Royal Sea Bathing hospital in Margate, which will be closing after just over 100 years of fine service.
Our local paper, the Thanet Gazette, captured the mood of this massive operation with the headline:
Hospital switch is a moving experience".
I thought that that was a rather clever headline, because it subtly recognised that emotions as well as logistics were involved, the principal emotion being pride that, at long last, Thanet had a hospital ready for the 21st century.
Last Friday, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet and I walked round the gleaming new wards, theatres and recovery rooms of the Queen Mum hospital, as it is already becoming popularly known. We both felt that it was a joy to share in that emotion of local pride. He and I know as well as anyone that the battle to build the new facilities was won, not just after the usual financial infighting in Westminster and Whitehall—important as those skirmishes were—but as a result of the tremendous support given to the project by the local community. Perhaps the most symbolic element of that support was the backing given so wholeheartedly to the fund-raising campaign in Thanet for the hospital's new accident and emergency department which, under its dynamic consultant, Alan Jones, will open its doors in July. It is the focal point of the hospital's range of acute services.
Neither the accident and emergency department nor even, possibly, the new complex itself would be coming into service this year were it not been for the momentum provided by what was known as the Tear appeal. The campaign, masterminded by an inspirational Broadstairs resident and community leader, Mrs. Maureen Greig, raised more than £650,000 for the accident and emergency department's equipment budget. More important, it gave a kick start to the final phase of the campaign to create a truly modern district general hospital. I pay a particularly warm tribute to Maureen Greig for her pivotal role in making the dream come true.
If I were to single out one other individual from an earlier era who made a vital contribution to this hospital development, it would be Dr. Margaret Voysey. She held the torch aloft in some of the darkest moments in the, at times, faltering struggle to get the new hospital built, and at various moments combined the role of doctor, campaigner, consultant, advisor, NHS manager, general headbanger and inspirer-in-chief. Both she and Mrs. Greig deserve the congratulations that are flowing to them from all sectors of our community.
Looking ahead, all thoughtful observers of the medical and hospital scene in Thanet know that the opening of the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital is not a moment for looking back or for resting on laurels. This is the beginning of a new era of steadily improving quality health care for the people of Thanet. Success in that new era will depend on three elements of continuity for the future: good medical staff, good management and good government.
I have already praised the medical and nursing team at the hospital, but it must be acknowledged that the recruitment of their successors, their juniors and their future leaders is crucial to the hospital's future. In recent years, hospitals in Thanet have suffered from two unjustified difficulties, which are closely linked. They are, first, manipulations by some of the consultants in neighbouring hospitals in misguided attempts to downgrade Thanet hospitals and, secondly, withdrawal of recognition by the royal colleges of some junior doctor posts. I believe that the royal colleges have been led astray by rival consultants' gamesmanship in this regard and I hope that they will swiftly restore recognition now that all their criteria for recognition have been so well met by the standards, facilities and procedures in the new hospital complex.
The prospects for recruitment and retention of consultants are bound to be enhanced by a new £3 million development at the hospital, which is expected to be signed and formally announced in the next few days. I refer to the development of a postgraduate medical centre and a 23-bed private patient unit, which will be adjacent to the hospital and able to use the new facilities in the hospital. Construction is expected to start this summer.
Another development will be the building of new accommodation on-site for junior medical staff and nursing staff. Both of these projects are going forward under the private finance initiative—a successful Government reform in which I played some part when I was with the Treasury—which allows private capital to be invested in the national health service and other public sector developments.
I wish that there was time to say more about the other management initiatives that will come on stream in and around the hospital in the next few months, but the hour is late and I am anxious to make way for my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet, who has been a doughty campaigner over the years for the new hospital complex that serves our constituents, but which is located in his constituency.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the hospital development has been possible only because of the success of the Government's NHS reforms, which unlocked both the resources and the management skills that made it happen. Huge credit is due to the chairman and the chief executive of the Thanet Healthcare NHS trust, respectively Mr. Glenn Stone and Mr. Barry Page. Their stewardship of the project and of the hospital has been a beacon of managerial excellence—and long may it and they continue to shine.
The star that shines brightest of all over this splendid new hospital complex is the simple fact that it is not only a flagship of medical excellence, but that it is a people's hospital that has been built because of popular—indeed, passionate—local support. It is a great NHS achievement


and a great local achievement. I am sure that the new Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital will serve Thanet long into the 21st century.

Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on securing the debate and I thank him for allowing me to share it with him. It is more than 200 years since the distinguished John Coakley Lettsom founded the Royal Sea Bathing hospital in Margate. Since that time, it has become internationally famous for its position at the forefront of the treatment of the once prevalent tuberculosis and of orthopaedic cases. Even Mr. Lettsom would be astonished if he were to see the new orthopaedic and other operating theatres at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital.
As my right hon. Friend said, the theatres, with their laminaflow ventilation systems, represent a state-of-the-art facility that is unrivalled anywhere in the south-east. The investment—well in excess of £20 million—has produced a hospital that can offer our constituents a standard of treatment and conditions that are quite simply superb. That this is so represents an achievement in the teeth of some medical-political opposition.
In the 1960s, there was a plan and a scale model for a 1,000-bed hospital on the Margate site. No doubt that model is now collecting dust somewhere on a shelf as the result of the opening of an accident and emergency unit at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, and a campaign in the mid-1960s to close Margate and to centre treatment on Canterbury. It was the fierce opposition of the local council, under Conservative control, that preserved Margate district hospital, as it then was, to fight another day.
In the 1970s, there were further grand plans for development, which came to nothing as the debate over whether to rebuild or to downgrade the hospital continued. It is largely due to the determination of the local medical team, with the support of superb staff, and considerable foresight that the Queen Mum hospital—as it is already known—is now open for business.
As my right hon. Friend said, no recognition of this work would be complete without naming Dr. Peggy Voysey, who joined Margate hospital as a consultant anaesthetist in the 1960s and, on the first of several retirements, became the first unit general manager. Peggy Voysey almost literally laid the foundation of the new hospital when, on the back of some works on one ward, she renewed the drainage system and upgraded an antiquated pharmacy. Dr. Voysey's endeavour was continued, and the dream realised, through the hard work of the present management team under Glenn Stone and Barry Page, and as a direct result of the creation of the hospital trust that released local people to make local decisions.
Local people voted with their mouths and, through their tremendous response to the Tear appeal, through their pockets, and donated generously to demonstrate local support for the 24-hour accident and emergency unit that is needed to serve the population of the large and expanding Thanet catchment area.
Throughout a time of uncertainty and turmoil, as medical-political opinion was overcome, the consultants and staff of the Thanet district hospital kept their faith

and determination. My right hon. Friend and I have been privileged to work with them to bring to an end the days when Thanet patients have had to be transported many miles to receive the treatment that in some cases they needed as a matter of life or death.
I shall never forget the day when Ann Richardson, then the sister on Cheerful Sparrows ward, pointed out of the ward window and told the visiting then regional health chairman, Peter Barker:
That's where I want my new hospital".
Well you'd better have it then, hadn't you?
he said.
We have had tremendous support also from his successor, William Wells, and Chris Spry at the new regional health authority, from the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and from many other people in addition to those named by my right hon. Friend. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not name them all because of time constraints.
When my right hon. Friend, who is now the Secretary of State for National Heritage was Secretary of State for Health, laid the foundation stone, we believed that we were at last on our way to delivering the hospital service that Thanet and the coastal towns need. Now, as one of our most prominent orthopaedic consultants told me at the weekend, we have a hospital that has, in only four years, made a quantum jump from the original Margate hospital of the 1930s to the health service of the 21st century, and the X-ray unit, once one of the most antiquated in South East Thames has, following the creation of the trust, been developed into one of the finest.
As all our services are consolidated on the Margate site, those at the now closing Royal Sea Bathing hospital will be sad that that chapter in their history is ending, after more than 200 years. They will miss the fine old building and the sea views that were the province of John Coakley Lettsom, but I hope that they will be proud to continue to enjoy their reputation for dedication and fine medicine in the Sea Bathing wing of the Queen Mother hospital.
The rest is not, as they say, history. The Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital now seeks to play a still greater role in care in the community through its outreach clinic, and it has plans for the construction of a general practitioner service alongside the 24-hour accident and emergency unit. That development will extend the waiting space, provide GP surgeries with a triage centre at the core to deal with "walking wounded", keep more patients out of hospital and free accident and emergency beds to handle emergency admissions.
A programme of refurbishment of the vacated Margate hospital wards will commence once plans have been agreed and finalised, and with that extra space the hospital should be able to handle even the worst winter epidemic flood of admissions. Like the Windmill theatre, it will never close.
With the review of pathology services in east Kent, the Queen Mother hospital is well placed to offer biochemistry for the whole of east Kent. With histopathy and cystology concentrated at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford, and the haematology services located at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, the area will be provided with much-needed first-rate pathology facilities. I believe that the plan, if adopted, will make the best use of the talents and equipment available at the three major hospitals now serving east Kent.
My wife and I have good cause to be grateful to our hospital. I have been an in-patient on Hicks ward and my wife's mother was a patient on Viking and Venner wards during her dying days last year. We have experienced personally a standard of medical care, nursing attention and compassion in a hospital, then bursting at the seams, and from a staff whose numbers were depleted by illness, that was and is outstanding by any yardstick. I am delighted that the loyalty and dedication of those nursing professionals has been, and will continue to be, recognised by this investment in their future.
I hope that I have said enough to make it plain that the work of providing for the needs of tomorrow goes on. I feel honoured to have helped, with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet, to bring about the changes that we have already seen, and I am dedicated personally to seeing those changes through to completion. I am confident that my hon. Friend the Minister will, in turn, be able to pledge the support of his Department, through Government policy and, when appropriate, financial backing, to that continuing process of development and dramatic improvement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Mr. Aitken) on his success in securing the debate, and on its timeliness. As he said, it takes place only a few days after the new extension of the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital in Thanet opened for its first patients. He, together with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who has also taken part in the debate, have always been stalwart supporters of local health services. That we are able today to celebrate the opening of a new extension is in no small part thanks to their efforts in championing the development from the start.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the comments about hospital services in Thanet generally. Hospital services are provided to the people of Thanet principally by Thanet Healthcare NHS trust. Many services are now centralised at the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospital, which is the new name for the Margate hospital. The renaming earlier this year marks the realisation of the considerable restructuring that has taken place recently, and heralds what I am sure will be a most successful future for that important hospital.
The £20 million extension to the hospital is a welcome development. It significantly increases the capacity of the hospital, improves the quality of the fabric and the environment, and creates a fully 24-hour accident and emergency department in that part of east Kent which has the densest population and therefore needs it the most.
The extension includes in a new block four operating theatres, six wards, a medical imaging department, coronary care, intensive care, and high dependency units, and physiotherapy and occupational therapy facilities. The first patients were admitted to the new block on 14 April, and new accident and emergency and associated trauma services are scheduled to start very soon.
Construction work on the development began just two years ago, and has been completed virtually on time and on cost—a tribute to the project leadership and to all those

involved with the work. The majority of the £20 million cost of the development was funded from the NHS capital budged, and I am grateful for the tributes that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) paid to successive Secretaries of State in that regard.
There was also a welcome contribution from local public donations in response to the Tear appeal, which was set up in March 1993 by the hospital league of friends to finance a 24-hour accident and emergency department at Margate—clearly showing the determination of Thanet residents to obtain the benefits that such a local service could bring.
The new development also signifies a very positive commitment to the trust and to the hospital by East Kent health authority on behalf of local residents. The new development represents a significant investment and is the outcome of successful discussions between the health authority and the trust. The new development is but the latest and the most prominent of various capital investments at the hospital in recent years.
As well as restructuring and the continuous spending on maintenance and minor works that is necessary for any building, I should like to mention particularly the day surgery theatre and endoscopy suite costing £320,000, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet opened in September 1993. That facility has helped the trust to achieve a remarkably high level of day surgery—last year 63 per cent. of elective surgery was done on a day-case basis—and dramatically reduce waiting times, which is quite unusual in light of the trend across the country.
Of course, high-quality health care is based not only on excellent facilities but on excellent staffing—both clinical and managerial—and on robust and constructive relationships with general practitioners and with other trusts. There is considerable evidence of the excellent health services provided by the trust, to the credit of the 1,100 or so doctors, nurses and other staff who work for the organisation.
The trust made quality of care a top priority from the outset. Nowhere is that demonstrated more clearly than in its recent success in being awarded full accreditation under the King's Fund organisational audit scheme. That is a most commendable achievement, requiring a high level of performance across a comprehensive range of exacting quality standards. I am pleased to report that it is one of the few hospitals in this country to achieve that level of accreditation.
There is much other evidence of quality and professionalism. The trust continues to develop laser and laparoscopic surgery. Surgeons at Thanet introduced the first Holmium Yag laser outside the United States to Europe, and their expertise now draws surgeons from overseas to study at Thanet and hone their techniques. That is good for local residents too, because the techniques being used mean that, even after major surgery, such as a hysterectomy operation, patients spend less time in hospital, recover more quickly and return to work and other activities that much sooner.
The trust is also at the leading edge in radiography. Its breast screening unit uses the latest high-sensitive, low-dose equipment, and the trust is also equipped with a state-of-the-art X-ray unit, incorporating the latest computerised imaging system—one of the first in Britain—at a cost of more than £400,000. Being perhaps


rather remote geographically has clearly been no barrier to the trust's achieving excellence at the forefront of technology. It has a tomography scanner on site, and a fully equipped investigative cardiac and lung function laboratory which provides a quick, local, high-tech service with direct access to local GPs.
During 1995–96, the trust provided more than 18, 000 in-patient treatments and almost 9, 000 day-case procedures. It saw some 96, 000 out-patients, and dealt with some 43, 500 accident and emergency cases. That represents a substantial work load, and the trust is committed to a further growth in activity this year of 8 per cent. That is excellent news for my right hon. Friend's constituents, who will also be heartened to learn that waiting times have reduced substantially and the trust is now well below the 12-month target in all specialties. Indeed, 75 per cent. of patients are treated within nine months.
Finally, I am glad to say that that has all been achieved with relatively modest management costs. That has meant more money for direct patient care and is reflected in the management cost reduction target, which has been set at 3 per cent. for the trust this year.
The new development at Thanet is just one of the 70 or so schemes, each costing more than £1 million, that we expect to see completed in the NHS this year. Those are in addition to the 700 such schemes completed over the past 10 years, in a programme worth many billions of pounds. In fact, we have seen the largest sustained programme of capital investment in the entire history of the NHS. By modernising and renewing the existing building stock and building new facilities, the environment in which health care is delivered up and down the country is being continuously improved.
I am glad for my right hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet and for my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who have campaigned so hard and for so long with their constituents for that facility, that such a striking example of a new hospital should be opened in Thanet. I wish the new hospital, its staff and the patients who use it every success.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Two o'clock.